DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on December 08, 2010, 09:35:52 AM
-
He is also breaking his biggest campaign pledge in 2008. I guess we'll see how this plays out. This article also refers to the 9.8% unemployment rate as a jump, XO.
Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0907/its-a-little-intimidating-politics-obama-national-security-f-demotivational-poster-1246678019.jpg)
President Obama could be crippling his own reelection effort by making a deal with Republicans to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts, Democratic strategists and liberal groups said Monday.
A two-year extension of tax rates ushered in by President George W. Bush nearly a decade ago, would ensure a resumption of today?s fiery debate in 2012, when Obama is expected to reapply for his job, strategists in both parties said.
It also is angering the left wing of the Democratic Party, which already has a long list of complaints about Obama.
?President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side ? and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,? said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
The PCCC on Monday afternoon circulated quotes from 2008 Obama campaign staffers who expressed disillusionment with the president for agreeing to extend tax cuts for the wealthy amid signs that the White House and Republicans were edging closer to a deal.
?Obama is demobilizing the troops and demoralizing the public right before he seeks reelection,? Green said.
The compromises by the White House have also disappointed liberals in the House and Senate, who have pushed Obama to take a tougher line with the GOP. Some liberals had said it would be better for Obama to allow all of the tax cuts to expire rather than cave to GOP demands and allow tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended.
Democratic strategists are disappointed that the president appears to be fighting the tax debate on terms dictated by Republicans, who have been able to frame a tax increase on any taxpayers as detrimental to a struggling economy. Friday?s unemployment report, showing a surprising jump in the jobless rate ? to 9.8 percent ? didn?t make matters easier for the White House.
?This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,? said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.
Privately, Republican aides say they would love to have a fight over the high-end tax cuts as a central 2012 campaign issue.
?It?s ultimately a question of whether Democrats believe their own rhetoric,? said one Senate GOP aide. ?They seem to think that Americans are OK with raising taxes on small businesses. Republicans disagree and would love to debate that notion anytime."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132307-angry-left-sees-refusal-to-fight-as-crippling-2012-reelection-bid (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132307-angry-left-sees-refusal-to-fight-as-crippling-2012-reelection-bid)
-
Meanwhile:
WASHINGTON ? The Club for Growth today declared its opposition to the tax compromise proposal reached yesterday by President Obama and congressional Republicans.
?This is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people,? said Club President Chris Chocola. ?The plan would resurrect the Death Tax, grow government, blow a hole in the deficit with unpaid-for spending, and do so without providing the permanent relief and security our economy needs to finally start hiring and growing again.?
?Instead, Congress should pass a permanent extension of current rates, including a permanent repeal of the death tax, and drop all new spending,? Chocola said. ?A month ago, the American people repudiated Washington big government. It?s time for both parties to finally hear that message and act on it.?
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14565 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14565)
-
And the "uncertainty" gets perpetuated
-
Where is the uncertainty?
For the next two years the Bush Tax cuts will remain in place for all Americans. Payroll taxes have been cut, and death tax ceilings have been raised, while the tax rate for the same has been lowered.
Seems far more certain than it was a week ago.
-
Where is the uncertainty?
Just going by YOUR article:
The plan would resurrect the Death Tax, grow government, blow a hole in the deficit with unpaid-for spending, and do so without providing the permanent relief and security our economy needs to finally start hiring and growing again. Instead, Congress should pass a permanent extension of current rates, including a permanent repeal of the death tax, and drop all new spending
-
MY article was posted to show that the man just can't win. Gets it from both sides. Perhaps i was too subtle.
But the American People seem to have won on this one. Tax Cut remains, payroll tax cut, Death tax lowered, I think there was something in there for the AMT, all this for extending UE benefits.
My personal take on this is that Obama folded against a pair of deuces.
-
why do you think that is BT?
dont the Democrats still control Congress and the Executive?
how can he claim disgracefully that the Republicans are "hostage takers"
When Obama and his party are still in Control?
The only way his agenda could be stopped is Democrats not supporting it.
-
His reputation for working with the GOP has been dismal at best. This is an about face. Perhaps he just kicked off his 2012 campaign. His base will vote for him anyway, he might have picked up some friends in the middle with the payroll tax cut and extending UE benefits.
-
MY article was posted to show that the man just can't win. Gets it from both sides. Perhaps i was too subtle.
Happens with just about every President. Not sure what the news flash is here. The deal was a "compromise" in the technical definition, and a defeat of Obama on both his policy positions and base. But this was politics, and he played it as best he could. It was a good time to push "tax cuts" (when in reality, there are no cuts at all, merely an extension of what is currently), which I think even he knows will help the economy. He can say he signed it while the Dems were still in charge. And 2ndly, it pushes a prized liberal objective of extending unemployment even longer, helping to keep folks happy about their current employment status, not having to work too hard at changing it
For him, politically, it's good timing. If this were an election year, you wouldn't have seen this. Doing this now allows his base to "get over it", while the Dems can parrot the GOP line of tax cuts for all
-
dont the Democrats still control Congress and the Executive?...The only way his agenda could be stopped is Democrats not supporting it.
BINGO
-
It was a good time to push "tax cuts" (when in reality, there are no cuts at all, merely an extension of what is currently)
Payroll taxes were cut by 2%
-
I was referring to the Bush Tax cuts. But hey, if the left wants to rail about the defunding of SS, they have my blessing. My guess is there will be barely a squeak, but had this been a GOP president, it'd be 24/7 MSM outrage
-
I was referring to the Bush Tax cuts.
You weren't clear on that.
But as far as the Payroll tax the cut is half assed anyway. They are only cutting contributions from the employee side, leaving the employer side as is. Not sure how that will increase jobs, but the employees will have a little extra jingle in their pockets so maybe it will help increase demand.
SS is underfunded anyway. Expect reduced payments, retirement age set back to 70 or later and possibly means testing.
-
But as far as the Payroll tax the cut is half assed anyway. They are only cutting contributions from the employee side, leaving the employer side as is. Not sure how that will increase jobs, but the employees will have a little extra jingle in their pockets so maybe it will help increase demand.
Perhaps, but definately not business friendly, is it.
SS is underfunded anyway. Expect reduced payments, retirement age set back to 70 or later and possibly means testing.
Yep, yep, but I doubt the last. Too many folks, and too grossly unfair to those that had money taken out for "them", for it not to be returned, when they're entitled to it. The bigger point though was that again, if this were Bush and the GOP passing this, it'd be wideranging Democrat and MSM outrage. Then again, if it were Bush and the GOP, we'd likely not be in this bad an economic mess, but they'd still cry outrage
-
Perhaps, but definately not business friendly, is it.
Once again, it depends upon what the employees do with the money.
Yep, yep, but I doubt the last. Too many folks, and too grossly unfair to those that had money taken out for "them", for it not to be returned, when they're entitled to it. the bigger point though was that again, if this were Bush and the GOP passing this, it'd be widranging Democrat and MSM outrage. Then again, if it were Bush and the GOP, we'd likely not be in this bad an economic mess, but they'd still cry outrage
This recession started under Bush, the TARP bailouts were his doing. And the GOP didn't lower payroll taxes when they had the chance so we don't know what the MSM would have said. And yes a payroll tax holiday on both the employee and employer side were being talked about back then.
-
Perhaps, but definately not business friendly, is it.
Once again, it depends upon what the employees do with the money.
Yes, and no. One might spend more on products, which in theory might help grow said business. But there's no incentive to the Business to facilitate folks coming in to by their products. As you said, its half assed
Yep, yep, but I doubt the last. Too many folks, and too grossly unfair to those that had money taken out for "them", for it not to be returned, when they're entitled to it. the bigger point though was that again, if this were Bush and the GOP passing this, it'd be widranging Democrat and MSM outrage. Then again, if it were Bush and the GOP, we'd likely not be in this bad an economic mess, but they'd still cry outrage
This recession started under Bush, the TARP bailouts were his doing.
You must have missed the part where I never gave Bush and the prior GOP majority a free ride, on the mess they were putting us in. Not surprising
And the GOP didn't lower payroll taxes when they had the chance so we don't know what the MSM would have said.
Given their clear track record, I sure as hell know
-
this can hurt alot.
pretty much the economy is dependent on it`s citizens ignorance of personal finance. it is in ones personal interest to always save money, but the economy`s growth was caused by too many plasma tv purchases.
so that extra money on the paycheck may cause some future problems
-
But there's no incentive to the Business to facilitate folks coming in to by their products.
Ummm It's called profit.
-
Then again, if it were Bush and the GOP, we'd likely not be in this bad an economic mess.....
What does that mean?
-
But there's no incentive to the Business to facilitate folks coming in to buy their products.
Ummm It's called profit.
Ummm, that's a given. ::) The issue is that with the gross uncertainty permeating the entire economic structure of this country, businesses were more inclined to make a profit with as little employee hiring as possible. And it soon became apparent it was mostly about employee firing....at least in the private sector.
Then again, if it were Bush and the GOP, we'd likely not be in this bad an economic mess.....
What does that mean?
I thought that was pretty clear. We'd be in a mess, just not as bad as it now is, under Obama & the Dems. Do you need more clarity?
-
We'd be in a mess, just not as bad as it now is, under Obama & the Dems.
How do you know that? What specifically has Obama done that has affected the GNP?
-
What specifically has Obama (and the Dems) done?? Yea, that debt would have been just as bad under Bush. Yea, that Deficit spending would have been just as horrendous. And the near complete Federal take over of the healthcare, banking, student loan, and various car industries were definately on Bush's agenda.
You smoking up that good stuff again?
-
The issue is that with the gross uncertainty permeating the entire economic structure of this country, businesses were more inclined to make a profit with as little employee hiring as possible. And it soon became apparent it was mostly about employee firing....at least in the private sector.
Even during good times businesses try to maintain lean staffing to maximize profits to be reinvested in growth. What is it that you want Obama to do?
-
What specifically has Obama (and the Dems) done?? Yea, that debt would have been just as bad under Bush. Yea, that Deficit spending would have been just as horrendous. And the near complete Federal take over of the healthcare, banking, student loan, and various car industries were definately on Bush's agenda.
What part of ObamaCare has been implemented that has affected the economy.
What has Obama done to the banking industry?
What did Obama do to Ford?
You smoking up that good stuff again?
You sure you want to make this personal?
-
What specifically has Obama (and the Dems) done?? Yea, that debt would have been just as bad under Bush. Yea, that Deficit spending would have been just as horrendous. And the near complete Federal take over of the healthcare, banking, student loan, and various car industries were definately on Bush's agenda.
What part of ObamaCare has been implemented that has affected the economy.
THE UNCERTAINTY...of everything. From the quality of the care, to premiums, to access, to waiting in lines, to how it's going to be paid for, to how much taxes may be raised and/or how much greater in debt we're to go into, for it to even get started. Already, company after Union after comany is getting waivers of this supposed grand correction to our healthcare woes
What has Obama done to the banking industry? What did Obama do to Ford?
The Government has no business taking our tax dollars, and bailing out private organizations.
The issue is that with the gross uncertainty permeating the entire economic structure of this country, businesses were more inclined to make a profit with as little employee hiring as possible. And it soon became apparent it was mostly about employee firing....at least in the private sector.
Even during good times businesses try to maintain lean staffing to maximize profits to be reinvested in growth. What is it that you want Obama to do?
Get out of the way. Less regulations, not more. Less Fed intervention, not more. Less spending, not more. Less impeding of Private Enterprise, not more
For those companies that are about to go bankrupt....there was a reason. Some other entrepreneur will come in and revitalize it. If it takes off, more jobs, more revenue for the treasury. And if they don't, at least they tried with their money, not the tax payers, and someone(s) else comes in
You smoking up that good stuff again?
You sure you want to make this personal?
It's a jest made in reference to when someone is speaking kinda.....crazy like. Why?, do you actually smoke the stuff?? Personal is calling people names, insisting that their comments don't matter, making derrogatory references to family, garbage like that. You must be uber sensitive to think I'm trying to "get personal". If so, my apologies
-
THE UNCERTAINTY...of everything. From the quality of the care, to premiums, to access, to waiting in lines, to how it's going to be paid for, to how much taxes may be raised and/or how much greater in debt we're to go into, for it to even get started. Already, company after Union after comany is getting waivers of this supposed grand correction to our healthcare woes
So nothing really concrete has happened yet. The only thing that has happened is that anyone with a decent lobbyist can get a waiver to circumvent the law.
Quote from: BT on Today at 03:55:22 PM
What has Obama done to the banking industry? What did Obama do to Ford?
The Government has no business taking our tax dollars, and bailing out private organizations.
So what did the Government do to Ford?
It's a jest made in reference to when someone is speaking kinda.....crazy like.
We can disagree without calling sanity into question.
-
THE UNCERTAINTY...of everything. From the quality of the care, to premiums, to access, to waiting in lines, to how it's going to be paid for, to how much taxes may be raised and/or how much greater in debt we're to go into, for it to even get started. Already, company after Union after comany is getting waivers of this supposed grand correction to our healthcare woes
So nothing really concrete has happened yet. The only thing that has happened is that anyone with a decent lobbyist can get a waiver to circumvent the law.
And all that uncertainty I mentioned above, (uncertainty that you yourself have acknolwedged was one of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery) that has rooted itself in business, small and large, across the country
Quote from: BT on Today at 03:55:22 PM
What has Obama done to the banking industry? What did Obama do to Ford?
The Government has no business taking our tax dollars, and bailing out private organizations.
So what did the Government do to Ford?
I don't recall them doing anything to Ford. Last I checked it was GM
It's a jest made in reference to when someone is speaking kinda.....crazy like.
We can disagree without calling sanity into question.
As I said, if you're being uber sensitive to be questioned as to how radical your thought process was running.....well, I don't know what to tell yas.....I formally disagree with your prior assessment processing
-
The government bailed out Chrysler in 1983. Chrysler then began producing the K-cars, which sold well enough with Lee Iacocca advertising them, to allow Chrysler to pay off the loan guarantee before it was due to expire.
-
I don't recall them doing anything to Ford. Last I checked it was GM
So they collateralized their loans to GM. And you object to them securing the loan?
And all that uncertainty I mentioned above, (uncertainty that you yourself have acknolwedged was one of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery) that has rooted itself in business, small and large, across the country
The uncertainty primarily had to do with potentially increased tax burdens. Apparently that has been taken care of.
As I said, if you're being uber sensitive to be questioned as to how radical your thought process was running.....well, I don't know what to tell yas.....I formally disagree with your prior assessment processing
Oh i'm not uber sensitive to any names you could call me or any characterization of my thought process, you may feel like applying. You had gone down that road numerous times in the last couple days and I was just curious if that was the way you wanted to play it.
-
I reject to our tax dollars being used to bail out a private organization. And the uncertaintly remains, including that of the tax burdens, as your initial article itself referenced
And glad we got that cleared up on not being sensitive to name calling. Especially, since I never did today, or even "the last couple days". And I'm sure we don't want to go down your road of what you've been doing the last several weeks, if not months
So, we'll just disagree at this point
The government bailed out Chrysler in 1983. Chrysler then began producing the K-cars, which sold well enough with Lee Iacocca advertising them, to allow Chrysler to pay off the loan guarantee before it was due to expire.
Yea, so how's that Chrysler thing working out?
-
The government bailed out Chrysler in 1983. Chrysler then began producing the K-cars, which sold well enough with Lee Iacocca advertising them, to allow Chrysler to pay off the loan guarantee before it was due to expire.
That was under Reagan wasn't it?
-
And glad we got that cleared up on not being sensitive to name calling. Especially, since I never did today, or even "the last couple days". And I'm sure we don't want to go down your road of what you've been doing the last several weeks, if not months
Sure you have asked me at least 5 times in the last coupole days what kinda wacky weed i've been smoking.
I don't believe i have called you any names in the last month. Perhaps you can dig up a post where i did.
At worst i have questioned some of your stances. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
-
And again, clarification apparently isn't your strong suit. Here's a hint....jesting about a relatively crazy-like thought process isn't accusing someone of being insane. ::) And let's just say, since the Mosque debacle, your record of misrepresentation, especially as it relates to me, could easily be taken as personal.
Per your request, we'll just disagree at this point
-
Here's a hint....jesting about a relatively crazy-like thought process isn't accusing someone of being insane.
That's just nuts.
-
Now, should I take that personally? Given the parameters you're applying, I should, right? But I'll use mine, so I won't 8)
-
That's even nuttier :o
-
Precisely ;) :P 8)
-
The government bailed out Chrysler in 1983. Chrysler then began producing the K-cars, which sold well enough with Lee Iacocca advertising them, to allow Chrysler to pay off the loan guarantee before it was due to expire.
Actually the bailout of Chrysler was in '79 under Jimmy Carter, the Barack Obama of their times. It was for $1.5 billion. I don't see why the private sector couldn't have put up the money besides the government.
Chrysler's resurgence had more to do with Lee Iacocca's leadership than anything the government did.
-
not sure chrysler is a good example,since lee didn`t ask for money but a promise of it .
-
The government bailed out Chrysler in 1983. Chrysler then began producing the K-cars, which sold well enough with Lee Iacocca advertising them, to allow Chrysler to pay off the loan guarantee before it was due to expire.
Actually the bailout of Chrysler was in '79 under Jimmy Carter, the Barack Obama of their times. It was for $1.5 billion. I don't see why the private sector couldn't have put up the money besides the government.
Chrysler's resurgence had more to do with Lee Iacocca's leadership than anything the government did.
Actually the private sector did put up the money. US Government involvement was in the form of loan guarantees that required the 1.5 billion in financing as well as 2 billion more in commitments and concessions from suppliers, investors and employees.
But you are correct that it happened on Carter's watch though Reagan did support it.
-
.... It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman...
http://www.bizmove.com/inspiration/m9a.htm (http://www.bizmove.com/inspiration/m9a.htm)
A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit
Arnold Glasow
There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn’t matter who gets the credit
Ralph Waldo Emerson
These are Obama tax cuts .
-
I still don't think it was right to put the American taxpayer on the hook for a failing company. The taxpayer never asked to take on that kind of risk. Reagan had business people in charge of the process and ended up making a profit with it, but that still doesn't make it right. Guarantee the loans with private financing or allow the company to go into bankruptcy.
-
I understand your concerns.
But here are a couple of concerns to consider.
What would the cost be to the states and feds if Chrysler did go under.
Unemployment, food stamps, mortgages backed by federal funds etc. Lost revenue from taxes ?
Perhaps cosigning the loan was the cheapest alternative.
But one thing I am curious about. Where did the 350 million dollar profit to the feds come from?
-
While His Base Rages, Obama Faces Tax-Cut Reality
Reality strikes. Barack Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel and agreed with Republicans to extend the current income tax rates -- the so-called Bush tax cuts -- for another two years.
He got a few things in return, primarily extended unemployment benefits for another 13 months, and agreed as well to a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax.
But he recognized the reality that in order to prevent a tax increase on those with incomes under $250,000 he had to prevent a tax increase on those over that line, as well.
This has infuriated liberal Democrats like outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they share some of the blame themselves. They probably could have passed their version of the tax bill earlier this year, before the economic recovery stalled in the spring.
But with the economy faltering, there's a strong argument against raising anyone's taxes -- strong enough to have persuaded many congressional Democrats.
Obama had to abandon his goal of raising taxes on high earners not because Republicans opposed it but because not enough Democrats supported it. Pelosi couldn't summon up a majority on the issue back in September, and Harry Reid could get only 53 of the needed 60 votes this month.
Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for extension of all the "Bush tax cuts."
Still, Obama in his surly statement Monday evening and his unusually brief press conference Tuesday afternoon, was at pains to attack Republicans.
The president who first came to national attention for expressing respect for those with whom he differed insisted that he was eager to "fight" Republicans and described them as "hostage takers," with the American people as hostages. Not much evidence of civility.
And he addressed most of his remarks to what last month's election revealed as a narrow segment of the nation's electorate, the Democratic base.
Over the years, I've noticed that politicians tend to view the whole nation through the prism of their electoral base, even when they know it's not typical. On Monday and Tuesday, Obama seemed to be aiming his remarks at the 13th state Senate district of Illinois, which he designed and which is about 60 percent black and 25 percent gentry liberal, not to the political independents who supported him and his party in 2008 and then went heavily Republican last month.
Thus Obama lauded the health care bill jammed through Congress by Democratic leaders and, addressing liberal complaints that it lacked a public option, said it could be expanded as Medicare was. That might mollify liberal Democrats but will repel independents, who opposed and still oppose Obamacare by wide margins.
Obama did argue that "tax breaks for wealthy individuals" are unpopular and would prove a political liability for Republicans in 2012. But for every poll supporting that proposition you can find another going the other way -- it all depends on how the question is worded.
The strongest part of the press conference came when Obama told liberal Democrats that robust economic growth will make everything easier. That's true: Robust growth produces a boom in revenues far beyond what government statistical models predict. In 1995, Bill Clinton refused to even promise to balance the budget, but the tech boom generated enough revenue to do so a few years later.
But that raises the question of why the economy has been growing at such a limp rate two years into the Obama administration. The specter of higher taxes on high earners -- delayed now for two years, but still threatened by the president -- surely has done something to choke off growth.
So has uncertainty about the extent and cost of the administration's regulatory policies -- which are not limited by the deal on taxes. Extension of unemployment benefits, arguably good policy at a time when jobs are genuinely scarce, tends to perpetuate unemployment as the economy grows, by inducing some workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs.
The tax deal is certainly better for the economy than political gridlock over extending the tax cuts. How much better is uncertain.
But the Democratic base seems more interested in expanding government than in stimulating the economy. They are bellowing with rage not so much at Obama but at the reality that he is grudgingly acknowledging. They had their time, and now it's gone.
Economic Reality (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/12/09/while_his_base_rages,_obama_faces_tax-cut_reality)
-
Personally, I won't be voting for him again. I don't regret supporting him over Hillary Clinton but he's pretty much done what Harold Ford Jr did which is to believe that the left will vote for him no matter what.
We wanted a liberal with a backbone. We got a DINO.
He had all three branches and chose to go the easy route of just doing nothing and not rocking any boats. He hasn't done any of the things that those of LEFTISTS wanted him to do. He didn't even close down Guantanamo. He won't even overturn DADT even tho the MILITARY said it was a bad idea.
This lady I'm dating is really involved with politics and she's still trying to defend him because she's a middle of the roader but even SHE is now thinking that maybe he's just a dumbass.
-
This lady I'm dating is really involved with politics and she's still trying to defend him because she's a middle of the roader but even SHE is now thinking that maybe he's just a dumbass.
I keep going back to one of the things he said and i paraphrase he is a perfectly blank slate upon which we project ourselves.
Perhaps we are the dumb asses too. Perhaps we should not expect the problems of this country to be expressed with bumperstickers nor solved with bumpersticker solutions. Cause that's just dumb.
-
Perhaps Brass, the issue with Obama is what's been referenced since the get go.....piss poor judgement and ridiculously inept leadership skills. He "says" all the right things to appease his base, but when it comes down to it, he couldn't get enough DEMOCRATS to back his socialist agenda. Apparently it takes more than simply being a Community organizer to lead the free world ............ (into serfdom)
-
So nearly EVERY industrialized nation in the world, including your precious Israel, has some form of universal health care. Are all those nations living in "serfdom".
-
The Serfdom is in reference to a socialist agenda/goal. Cash for Croakers is merely a stepping stool in trying to get there
Not to mention that the U.S. is superior to pretty much every other country in the area of healthcare related research, medications, equipment, and quality in delivery. No coincidence that it's largely because we DON'T have some form of UHC......until now
Your prescious England is economically imploding with its version of UHC, and Canadiens make every effort to get their healthcare here, when it comes to chronic pain and needed surgeries. In fact, I have yet to see any stories of Americans flocking to Canada for their supposedly superior healthcare
-
canada , no
cuba,china,india & costa rica yes
the key words is price and availability.
you state equipment, some of the mentioned countries has more advance tool than the U.S. due to patent issue here in the U.S.
-
I'm pretty sure that's all hogwash.
-
in a few years it`ll be standard for insurance companies to send people oversea for care.
remember rush thought of living in one of them places
took a moment to remember the term
medical tourism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism)
-
Not to mention that the U.S. is superior to pretty much every other country in the area of healthcare related research, medications, equipment, and quality in delivery. No coincidence that it's largely because we DON'T have some form of UHC......until now
Your prescious England is economically imploding with its version of UHC, and Canadiens make every effort to get their healthcare here, when it comes to chronic pain and needed surgeries. In fact, I have yet to see any stories of Americans flocking to Canada for their supposedly superior healthcare
The US is only somewhat superior to other countries if you only look at the people who can AFFORD IT. Even then the US is not number one.
All those people who "flock" to the US for it's healthcare come here predominantly for elective surgeries i.e. boob jobs and facelifts.
I saw something recently about the health care system in the UK and they were saying that no politician who ever wants to get re-elected will eve try to end socialized medicine there.
-
boob jobs,facelifts????
I thought venezuela would be the place for that. in fact i hear alot of americans complain elective are too restricted here in the U.S..
it`s the reason I haven`t seen any large breasted women in america since the 90`s
-
Not to mention that the U.S. is superior to pretty much every other country in the area of healthcare related research, medications, equipment, and quality in delivery. No coincidence that it's largely because we DON'T have some form of UHC......until now
Your prescious England is economically imploding with its version of UHC, and Canadiens make every effort to get their healthcare here, when it comes to chronic pain and needed surgeries. In fact, I have yet to see any stories of Americans flocking to Canada for their supposedly superior healthcare
The US is only somewhat superior to other countries if you only look at the people who can AFFORD IT. Even then the US is not number one. All those people who "flock" to the US for it's healthcare come here predominantly for elective surgeries i.e. boob jobs and facelifts. I saw something recently about the health care system in the UK and they were saying that no politician who ever wants to get re-elected will eve try to end socialized medicine there.
It's superior in quality, technology, medications, AND access. The difference being is that healthcare (or more accurately the services of another) is not a right. Once we dispell with that myth, we can focus on providing the maximum amount of our quality of healthcare, accessible to the maximum amount of people as possible
And the elective surgeries are predominantly pain management related, such as NEEDED joint replacements, that have folks waiting months, if not years in a UHC system
Politics aside, UHC is destroying the British economy, not to mention the quality of their healthcare
-
Well, I certainly am glad they're extending the Bush tax cuts. Look at how effective they've been in creating jobs. Especially compared to the higher tax rated 90s when economic growth was so stagnant.
bsb
-
Yea, so how's that dot com working out for yas, B? Oh, and last I checked, unemployment & job creation was quite the impressive manifestation of the tax cuts, especially following the events of 911. Until, that is, congress began to spend like a drunken sailor again. When was that again? Oh yea, right about when the Dems took control of the House
-
I should add that with the slowing down of the war in Iraq I'm a little fearful that the tax cuts won't work as well. We should get another war going and think about lowering our taxes even more in conjunction with the new front.
more war
less taxes
more war
less taxes
more war
less taxes
bsb
-
And the elective surgeries are predominantly pain management related, such as NEEDED joint replacements, that have folks waiting months, if not years in a UHC system
last I heard people are going to india for that. the cost difference is huge and they got more advance parts than the U.S.
-
Reganomics was a complete lie and has been demonstrably proven to only benefit the wealthy. 10 years of it and the top ten percent or so DOUBLED their income. Everyone else saw barely a 3% increase. The deficit ballooned out of control and homelessness skyrocketed. You guys keep backing the millionaires in hopes you'll hit the lottery one day and you're just not.
Tax the shit out of the rich and watch life get better. It always works.
-
LOL...................................not
Debunking the Millionaires and Billionaires Tax Cut Rhetoric
I am amazed when I hear not just liberal Democrats but also some Republicans being suckered into the belief that "the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, these millionaires and billionaires" should see their tax rates rise. It is class warfare, yes. More importantly, it is not true!
According to Bloomberg News, an overwhelming percentage of the people being called "the ultra rich" come nowhere near to earning $1 million dollars a year. Of this so-called "privileged class," 3.8 million of those filing taxes who the liberal wing of the Democratic party believes to be "the very wealthy" are earning somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. Only 608,000 taxpayers earn between $500,000 and $1 million a year. That leaves a grand total of 315,000 individuals or families that earn more than $1 million a year. And if you separate out from that number the Oprah Winfreys of the world -- megastar celebrities, professional athletes, and the true, few elites of the business and finance worlds -- the percentage of "ultra rich" is even lower.
But let's get back to that overwhelming majority of the highest tax bracket that liberals are so eager to see punished, even to the point of turning on their own president, who already has earned the reputation with many Americans of being the most liberal president since FDR. This tax class is made up of the small business owners, doctors, and small retail and manufacturing entrepreneurs who collectively employ nearly half of the nation's workforce.
While every big corporation and bank was getting a bailout during the economic collapse, and while those on welfare were seeing extension after extension of their benefits, this small group of Americans -- who already carry the brunt of the nation's tax burden -- struggled. And they are still struggling to keep their businesses and practices going. They are trying to avoid layoffs. They are cutting every possible expense.
These are the nation's most frustrated workers. Even while they have been balancing the economic viability of their enterprises on their own backs and out of their own pockets, they have had to watch as the bailed-out banks have made fortunes. And yet these same banks continue in their unwillingness and inability to lend money to the so-called "super wealthy" owners of small businesses so that they can keep their companies alive.
I have been a frequent critic of President Obama, but I must note that despite his clear left-of-center agenda, he was smart enough to realize that these 3.8 million non-millionaires, attacked as they have been by a mindless left wing, are the only hope he has for an economic recovery. Increase their taxes and inevitably they will have to cut back more in their own spending and, likely, on the number of people they hire and the services they use. Of course the president will never admit to this, but it is undeniable.
Now some conservatives are ready to sink the extension of the "Bush tax cuts" because of the extension of unemployment benefits that comes as a trade-off to get this deal done. Believe me, I want to see welfare reform back in place, just as it was passed by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s. But if conservatives kill the extension of the George W. Bush tax rates over the cost of the additional extension in unemployment benefits, they will be cutting their off their noses to spite their faces. The failure to extend the cuts would lead to a significant rise in unemployment and to the spending of more big money on a fresh new crop of unemployed Americans. And the "super wealthy" wouldn't be putting much back into the economy.
It seems that too few recognize what a critical moment we face on this tax issue. Increasing taxes on these so-called "wealthy" would be a guarantee of a new round of economic disasters. Let those who want to make a point about class warfare risk such a situation at their own peril.
Regardless, the next time you hear someone talk about taxing the "millionaires and billionaires," you will have these facts and can make clear to them that their desire to "spread the wealth" would only guarantee years more of economic misery. Maybe that's what they want.
So, when's the last time a poor person hired people, again? (http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2010/12/10/debunking_the_millionaires_and_billionaires_tax_cut_rhetoric)
-
LOL...................................not
Way.
-
See above debunkment
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv121010dAPR20101210054553.jpg)
-
Trickle down never works. The rich don't create jobs. They sit on their wealth. They buy old houses and land and play the stock market like a roulette wheel.
-
The rich don't create jobs.
Which companies have you worked for that were owned by poor people?
-
Unless they are fixing the old houses themselves, they are paying someone else to do the work, thereby creating jobs. And even if they do the work themselves they are keeping sawyers and paint factories and sheetrock manufacturers busy manufacturing the materials necessary for the home improvement.
-
The rich don't create jobs.
Which companies have you worked for that were owned by poor people?
My mother started her own business and sold it for a profit. She started it in her living room and used child labor (i.e. my sister and me). At the time she started said business, we all three lived in a two bedroom duplex and I distinctly remember having beans and loaf bread for dinner more than once.
Years later, I was her warehouse manager for a year and a half.
Does this meet your standard of working for a business owned by "poor people"?
And she created LOTS of jobs.
-
The idea that rich people need a tax break as an incentive to start or expand businesses is largely bogus.
Does anyone actually believe that the highest paid NBA pros or other pros will start companies or expand companies only if they are taxed 4.6% less on income over 250K? Both LeBron and Wade of the Miami Heat bought megamillion dollar mansions recently. Are we to believe that they would have started selling muffins or producing their own brand of cologne if they had just been give that incentive?
I find the idea that people pay $15 to smell like any athlete both amusing and illogical, by the way. I do not associate athletes with elegant smells.
-
The core of the debate is whether the income tax system should be progressive or not.
Targeted tax cuts or increases is just another wedge that keeps people divided, and as a way to curry favor and opens the door to corruption.
It is no more our business what the rich do with their money than it is what the poor do with their money.
What is our business is what the government does with our money.
If the government needs the money to advance a common good, then everyone should be expected to contribute to that common good at the same rate, regardless of what they have left over after the tax man takes the bite.
-
Actually, the fact that Florida has no state income tax was a reason that Wade and James decided to play in Miami.
-
But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?
I do not see this happening at all.
-
But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?
The debate isn't about lowering taxes 4.6%. The debate is whether raising the taxes 4.6% on a particular income segment will hinder the economic recovery.
And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.
And that might be a topic worth exploring.
-
Reganomics was a complete lie and has been demonstrably proven to only benefit the wealthy. 10 years of it and the top ten percent or so DOUBLED their income. Everyone else saw barely a 3% increase. The deficit ballooned out of control and homelessness skyrocketed. You guys keep backing the millionaires in hopes you'll hit the lottery one day and you're just not.
Tax the shit out of the rich and watch life get better. It always works.
If increaseing taxes on the wealthy were increaseing the depth of poverty on the poor would you still favor it?
Why do you think it doesnt?
As a thought experiment, think of Unkle Sam as an individual, the richest one on earth, he eats 30% of the GDP himself on a good year and worse in a bad year.
Why make Unkle Sam so wealthy and then moreso ad infinitum?
-
And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.
And that might be a topic worth exploring.
What kind of ventures are they involved in, XO? Are they owners of restaurants or nightclubs? You asked if they would be effected, but didn't provide any information about them.
-
But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?
The debate isn't about lowering taxes 4.6%. The debate is whether raising the taxes 4.6% on a particular income segment will hinder the economic recovery.
And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.
And that might be a topic worth exploring.
THe tax in question is an Income tax right?
So it isn't a tax on people who have property it is a tax on people who make the property productive, not a tax on people who have money but a tax on people who earn or create the money.
-
THe tax in question is an Income tax right?
So it isn't a tax on people who have property it is a tax on people who make the property productive, not a tax on people who have money but a tax on people who earn or create the money.
It is a proposed increase in tax upon those who earn above a certain amount.
-
LeBron James and Dwayne Wade are NBA basketball players for the Miami Heat. I was referring to the proposal by Obama that the Bush tax cut would be removed for everyone except those making above $200K ($250K if married). The amount of the tax that would NOT be cut was 4.6%
I have no knowledge that either of these men is starting any business whatever. Both of them just bought multimillion dollar mansions, so I doubt it.
We have been hearing for two years that if the Bush tax cut was nor rescinded on people of this income level, these people would not create jobs that the economy needs. I was suggesting that there are a lot of people in this tax bracket that would not create jobs even if they were given the tax cut.
I find it difficult that anyone did not understand this.
-
I have no knowledge that either of these men is starting any business whatever.
If you don't even know, how can we have a discussion about it? Do some more homework.
Both of them just bought multimillion dollar mansions, so I doubt it.
They probably have a few mansions. And a few apartments for their bitches. They have hired no gardeners, butlers, interior decorators, handymen, contractors, plumbers for their new homes? What about drivers or bodyguards? What makes you think they have created no jobs? Because they are black?
-
Anyone that lived in those mansions would also pay to maintain them, even if they belonged to the bank. It is not a question of the NBA star buying the mansion and the mansion just sitting there rotting away: it is
By "create jobs", I mean permanent jobs, not two or three days of hanging new drapes.
I don't think they are OBLIGED to start a company and hire anyone, but all we have heard is that that tiny 4.6% of the megawealthy person's income is the difference between them starting or expanding a company and not doing it,and this is patently false.
After all, if you start a company and hire people, it is all deductible from your bottom line as a business expense, and no taxes will be due on that amount.
There is nothing in the paper about either of these two guys starting a business, which would mean that they are not. I am not about to waste my time researching crap for your amusement and rebuttal.
The point is that the argument that tax breaks result in more jobs is simply bogus.
-
There is nothing in the paper about either of these two guys starting a business, which would mean that they are not.
Closer attention to reading is required.
LeBron James has at least one company:
"Mike Flynt, the 59-year-old grandfather who just finished his long-delayed senior season of college football, is the newest client of LeBron James' athlete management company."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3164390 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3164390)
Dwayne Wade has decided to expand his company:
"Dwayne Wade Company recently signed a lease for a new office building, for a lease period of 10 years."
http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-financial-reporting/133097 (http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-financial-reporting/133097)
-
And so, that sort of proves my point, doesn't it?
No 4.6% tax break was required to get these men to invest in a business.
-
They already have the tax break. what they don't have to deal with for a year or so is a tax increase.
-
And so, that sort of proves my point, doesn't it?
No 4.6% tax break was required to get these men to invest in a business.
Hardly. They currently have the tax break. The Democrats would like to remove it, thereby increasing their taxes.
-
No, we were told that they would not invest money UNLESS they got the tax break again.
First, all business expenses are deductible, and therefore reduce the amount of income.And that, in turn, reduces the amount on which the 4.6% would be paid.
Second, the fact that they invested the money before knowing they would get a tax break means that the tax break was an unnecessary incentive. 4.6% is not that much when one is making as much as these guys make for playing with balls.
-
This is an interesting..........conclusion. "The rich" don't need the tax break because its supposedly a bogus arguement to make, that they create jobs. But if they do create jobs, then....you see?, they didn't need a tax cut
-
It is bloody obvious that these two needed no incentive.
So why give them one?
-
t is bloody obvious that these two needed no incentive.
So why give them one?
Why give the poor a break?
or the middle class a break?
-
No, we were told that they would not invest money UNLESS they got the tax break again.
First, all business expenses are deductible, and therefore reduce the amount of income.And that, in turn, reduces the amount on which the 4.6% would be paid.
Second, the fact that they invested the money before knowing they would get a tax break means that the tax break was an unnecessary incentive. 4.6% is not that much when one is making as much as these guys make for playing with balls.
What would 4.6% more jobs mean to the country?
Expand the concept, what would be the result of removeing all the power to hire from the wealthy instead of just part of it?
If the taxes were halved , would the hiring be improved by say 15%?
-
If lower taxes had this huge power to create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created far more than they did.
If there are no taxes, there is no government and anarchy results. What you get is Somalia.
If taxes were 100%, no one would have any incentive to participate in the economy. People would grow their own food and barter with others for other needs. The economy would not involve money. Perhaps this would resemble what existed after Genghis Khan and Company took over, and his soldiers could plunder at will.
There is an ideal tax rate at which revenue and job creating are at an optimal level. If taxes are lowered beyond that point, revenue drops more than is justified.
Reducing taxes will not always raise revenue received.
-
If lower taxes had this huge power to create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created far more than they did.
Perhaps someone should remind Xo the unemployment rates, 2yrs after the tax cuts were in place. At least he seems to be conceding that the tax cuts did create more jobs, just not as many as they "should have" apparently. And what # "should have" been created?
Perhaps also a reminder of the increased revenues brought on into the reserves 2yrs following the Bush tax cuts, or even the Reagan tax cuts. More jobs, more fed revenues....oh the horror
If there are no taxes, there is no government and anarchy results. What you get is Somalia.
And what you have is no one advocating "no taxes". That would be referred to as a bogus arguement
-
>>What makes you think they have created no jobs? Because they are black?<<
He's obviously a racist.
-
I did not say that anyone was advocating a 100% tax or a 0% tax. But those are the two extremes, and both are unworkable.
There is an optimal percentage that will return the greatest revenue. It is hard to provide any figures as to the specific number of jobs provided. The optimal tax rate in some occupations will be different between the optimal rate in other occupations. A high-profit company should be able to pay more taxes than a low-profit company, for example. But the government obviously cannot tax accordingly, ie taxing casinos and Apple computer at a higher rate than importers of shoes from China.
The Juniorbush tax cuts did not produce greater revenues, according to most of the articles I have seen.
The optimal tax rate will also vary according to the state of the economy. There are a multitude of variables,and I really doubt that all of them are known or can be known.
-
I did not say that anyone was advocating a 100% tax or a 0% tax. But those are the two extremes, and both are unworkable.
Then why bring it up in a supposed serious conversation, when no one is even remotely pushing either extreme
The Juniorbush tax cuts did not produce greater revenues, according to most of the articles I have seen.
According to most of the articles I've "seen", they absolutely did. and if they didn't, why is everyone, including Obama now saying we can't increase tax rates, if the cuts supposedly don't produce greater revenues? In fact, it's more of the government's money they're dishing out, to "pay for the cuts".
In reality though, the timing couldn't have been better as they steered us from a potential economic meltdown, following the WTC's coming down. Spending outpaced the increased revenues however, which then went into warp deficit speed when the Dems took over
Still waiting for the # of jobs that "should have" been created, under Bush's tax rate reductions
-
Still waiting for the # of jobs that "should have" been created, under Bush's tax rate reductions
Still waiting for the actual numbers as well.
-
Then it was (dare I say) obviously a bogus claim to make in citing Bush's tax cut rate reductions "should have created far more jobs", when you have no idea
-
If lower taxes had this huge power to create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created far more than they did.
If there are no taxes, there is no government and anarchy results. What you get is Somalia.
If taxes were 100%, no one would have any incentive to participate in the economy. People would grow their own food and barter with others for other needs. The economy would not involve money. Perhaps this would resemble what existed after Genghis Khan and Company took over, and his soldiers could plunder at will.
There is an ideal tax rate at which revenue and job creating are at an optimal level. If taxes are lowered beyond that point, revenue drops more than is justified.
Reducing taxes will not always raise revenue received.
I think we agree on this concept , sometimes called the "Laffer curve".
But there seems to be little marker of the point at which the taxes have become too steep to be optimum.
How can we experiment ? If the economy runs best with a light load perhaps the best tax collections are made at the lowest rates.If the economy is very robust after all ,perhaps we can support an even bigger government bite.
I would rather err on the low side , we can always regrow the government if we have too little , but regrowing a damaged economy is more difficult.
-
The extremes of taxation are 0% and 100%. Neither is actually possible.
But again, there is an ideal tax rate above and below which revenues decrease.
-
The extremes of taxation are 0% and 100%. Neither is actually possible.
But again, there is an ideal tax rate above and below which revenues decrease.
How is this optimum level located?
-
Why would Obama's presidency be over if these tax cuts weren't passed, as Obama apparently was telling congressman?
-
The optimum tax level would be different in different regions and different industries. The only way to determine it would be with a pretty complex computer program. Of course, there is also the experience of other countries to draw on.
A company with high profit margins can afford a higher tax rate than one with a low profit margin, so there will always be some winners and some losers. It is a difficult thing to do, but not impossible.
-
The liberal left talked a big game, but in the end caved. I guess they thought they could placate their wild base with violent rhetoric while voting for Bush's policies. I wonder if Olbermann is still looking for a "new man--or woman"? The Bush tax cuts got more Democrat votes now than when Bush actually proposed them.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPzLwaaj-zSDa4vHOpizoLPOjauzHpVt7GTsvw__Z89Nkf-p7P)
-
The Bush tax cuts did not come at a time of crisis, and did not come with provisions to help the unemployed, either.
And no, I do not miss Juniorbush. Good riddance.
-
The Bush tax cuts did not come at a time of crisis, and did not come with provisions to help the unemployed, either.
It's not a time of crisis right now either. This is a an economy that has been kept bad by Obama's policies. We should be doing a lot better right now than we are.
The Democrats still have large majorities in congress. They could have gotten unemployment benefits without passing Bush's tax cuts. They got rolled on this. Unemployment benefits should not have been passed. They are making more per hour on the benefits than they are with a job. People need to go out and try to find a job, even if it is something that they are over qualified for. Benefits should be cut off at this point.
-
The Bush tax cuts did not come at a time of crisis
The Bush tax cuts came while we were still struggling out of the tech bubble burst from the end of Clinton's presidency.