<Removed>

[Night Strike]

The idea that businesses would necessarily use the money that "could have gone to taxes" to hire more people and grow their business (rather than piling it up as profits) is equally ludicrous. Otherwise, why aren't we having the freaking largest boom in our nation's history over the last ten or so years?

And yet not one of you guys has pointed that out. I can't imagine why that would be.

We did have economic growth and prosperity from about 2003-2007 after the current tax rates were put in place. However, we then had a bubble collapse and a president who campaigns (for 4 years) on wanting to raise taxes on successful people. And what has really eaten up all of that tax cut money has been the thousands of pages of new regulations that the government keeps piling on to businesses. When you have a government that continues to threaten to bring higher taxes while at the same time writing tons of new regulations, businesses choose to bank their money instead of expanding their company.

[thegreekdog]

Hundreds? Wow. Your list seems like less than hundreds.

Your list is irrelevant to the argument in any event. Your original assertion is that the Republicans didn't have a plan to reform healthcare/health insurance. They did have a plan, multiple plans actually. And you've provided evidence for that yourself. The best (in my opinion) Republican plan was to make the insurance market "more free." I've heard the assertion that the Republicans didn't have a plan many, many, many times from Democrats. It's simply not true. Thanks for proving that it's not true.

It is less than hundreds because, as I explained, those were ideas that made it through.

And your position that attaching a Republican idea onto the Democrats healthcare reform plan is the same thing as the Republicans having a plan is retarded. I was the one who said that the break room at work should be painted white. That did not mean that I was the one who worked out the plan to remodel the break room. I actually had nothing to do with it. Or am I just so darn naive?
Furthermore, their plan now is to return to the old plan, so that's that.

In any event, let's look at the problems with the Affordable Care Act:

(1) The Affordable Care Act increaes taxes without providing an incremental benefit. The law has 18 different tax increases that are imposed as follows:
(a) 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans that are valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax hike takes effect in 2018, after President Obama is gone.
(b) Increases the Medical Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax which increases the employee's portion of the tax from 1.45% to 2.35% for families making more than $250,000 per year.
(c) New 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income.

So?
"Raises taxes" does not make something bad.

One of the "savings" is the cuts ($575 billion projected) to Medicare. Ignoring whether there will be consequences to retirees over the cuts,

There is not a single cut in services in the Affordable Care Act.

The CBO itself noted that if the cuts were "implemented incompletely" then there will not be a fiscal savings.

This is from the "alternative scenario" report. Their first report was their assessment of the law as written, and not based on some weird alternative fiscal politics assumptions. Why wouldn't the cuts to useless spending be made? I don't know, and I don't know why the CBO decided to include political assumptions' in it's Marvel Alternate Universe report.

The chief actuary for Medicare also indicated that it is likely the savings in Medicare cuts will not materialize and the new spending under the Affordable Care Act will be added to the deficit.

Whaaat...
That report is like 38 pages long with an additional report that's like 20 pages long. I remember this because even I said "f- this" and didn't read it when it was posted to being liberal for dissection. Your next sentence should have been an explanation of why the savings are impossible, instead of running with another person's opinion.

The president plans to implement the "non-cut" to Medicare payments to doctors in another law. Why? So he can say the Affordable Care Act is fiscally sound.

You haven't even shown that the law isn't financially sound. Pretty much everyone I've seen outside of Fox has been discussing how it is financially sound. Citing the alternative universe report doesn't prove it for me or for most politically conscious people.
So if Obama is working to close any loopholes that may be pointed out, or whatever, I have no problem. It's good that the Democrats want to take care of business instead of ignore it or never admit to being wrong.

Okay, let's infer that there was a complete global financial crash if the second bailout hadn't gone through. Would that have been a bad thing in the long run given that we're on the precipe of another crash

Depending on how long of a time scale you're proposing, nothing matters.
It's so crazy to me that anyone would play down a Great Depression. "Sure 8% of our population would have starved to death, that's a worthy price to pay to let the free market operate the way it's intended."
America's Economy is recovering and the Stock Market is at an all-time high. I'd say that the stimulus was a success and that it was an easy price to pay.

So then we come back to why the bailouts were enacted in the first place. Let's say McCain won the election in 2008 and, as one of his first acts as president, signed into law the same bailouts that President Obama signed into law. What would you be posting about right now? I suspect you'd be posting that the bailouts were a complete failure and just a corporate boondoggle.

Why? pimpdave and I had this argument once before, he was for the Bush bailout and I was against it. I took the position that they should have used every minute to write up the best possible distribution plan, while he was concerned that the world was going to burn if we wasted our time. But by the time Obama did his stimulus plan, our opinions had reversed.

But anyway economic recovery going along alright and all that.

(1) Auto bailout - Government spent $79.3 billion assisting two companies (2!): General Motors and Chrysler. According to most reports, more than 1 million jobs were saved ($79,000 per job). It is arguable whether GM or Chrysler are out of the woods yet. Corporate boondoggle?

Why? There's millions of jobs tied to the manufacturing of automobiles, and we're going to get that money back. Both GM and Chrysler want to purchase the stock back from the government, who has said that they will sell it to them when they will get their investment back.
boogitty boogitty
I'm not going to expect them to pay all that money back within' 4 years when our economy hasn't even recovered.

(2) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Government was projected to spend $787 billion, but spent $825 billion. The CBO estimates that the stimulus raised the number of employees by 1.4 million ($589,285 per job). Corporate boondoggle?

Which corporation designed this?
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
The amount that they claim to have spent on their site is less than the number you've provided.

And it was my limited understanding that many counties, towns, and businesses were encouraged to apply for this money for infrastructure or repair projects. That something you said that you wanted, and you aren't even aware that Obama had also distributed millions for just that. I don't see why a graveled bridge on Lonesome road that was repaired would be a corporate boondoggle or why it would need full-time dedicated employees.

(4) HIRE Act - $17 billion cost with 10.6 million people hired. That's a pretty good rate of return, except that it is unclear how many people would have been hired without the HIRE Act. Corporate boondoggle?

Why is that a corporate boondoggle? What corporation designed this? And how do you know what it is if you don't have any idea what the return rate would be without it? It's like your saying that if a party does anything that is good for businesses or corporations then they have to be in the pocket of some fat cat. And you're saying this while using the words "likely" and "unclear how" all over the place.

Sure you can sit at your PC crying about how bad the government is and how everything is a bad "corporate boondoggle," but none of your reasoning even gives me the impression that you're aware of what the issues are or what issue you even have with the issues you're issuing. It's just loud noises that sound good if you don't listen to it skeptically.

(A) Democrat Alternative: Do the FDR New Deal thing and have the federal government hire people to build bridges or clean highways or whatever.
(B) Republican Alternative: Give money to the people directly.

The Republicans and Democrats supported neither of those things. Why? Crony capitalism.

Obama sent people checks directly and he cut the taxes by an average of 2K for 95% of workers. lol

And as I said above, communities were allowed to apply for money for stimulus money for infrastructure projects. And his Jobs Bill was designed to raise taxes on those with incomes over 1million to pay for cities and states to keep teachers, firemen, and police officers on the job. So Obama did your A & B years ago, albeit not as a national goal. Your problem is just that you hate all government and know nothing about what you're bitching about. Even using google you're falling behind. It's like talking to the Tea Party in this B. "Everybody is a crony and only I'm smart about it."

(5) Barney Frank campaign contributions (contributors): Goldman Sachs ($16,500 in 2011-2012), SEIU ($10,000 in 2011-2012), KPMG ($8,000 in 2011-2012). Barney Frank contributions (by industry): securities and investment is number one with $79,050.

We've been over this before. Barney Frank's campaign contributions from banks are actually very low in comparison to others with his level of oversight. And neither he nor Chris Dodd actually need the contributions to run for office. The banks can try to buy their love, but since neither needs the money, it seems like a non-point smoke argument to me. If I were them I'd probably take the money too.

(3) The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (the biggest Wall Street lobby) expressed support for the law and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to PREVENT A STRONGER LAW FROM PASSING!

What do you think the OofFR is? It was created by the Dodd-Frank Act and is acting independently to form it's own expository/regulatory process. The OMG Wall Street Lobby is also lobbying to shut it down. That's something that you've missed. It just goes back to my earlier point that Dodd Frank isn't about controlling or even regulating Wall Street. The rules included in the Dodd Frank Act simply say "X can't happen anymore, it's illegal now." It's the combination of the new rules and the regulatory committee (that hasn't even done anything yet) working together that form the foundation for actual oversight. It's not even about controlling whatever Wall Street does. Independent corporations can still control their own futures. It's just about making sure that Wall Street can't hold the world hostage again.

(2) Some experts argue that Dodd Frank does not end too big to fail. Moody's (you know, the ratings guys) seees the Dodd-Frank Act ending too big to fail by forcing bank creditors at the bank holding companies to take losses, but also sees the regulators enshrining into law that operating companies won't fail (i.e. will get bailouts again). This is from CNBC by the way.

The OofRF isn't even done forming it's own policies yet and already the Dodd Frank Act is useless in the face of unwavering financial journalism that ignores it's existence in the first place. ok.

As a percentage of the economy. AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ECONOMY. Wages are not lower than they were in 1970 so stop saying that. It's misleading at best, and a blatant and purposeful lie at worse. I've seen the chart that shows the economy increasing dramatically while wages increase just a little. I don't like it either. But I don't see the wages decreasing. Sorry.

So the buying power of our money is decreasing exponentially. The wealthy continue to take larger shares of the wealth that we the workers make. They give us a raise of $1, which actually has the buying power of $.30 in 1970s terms, and you want to call that a rising wage. You're the one who's out of touch and dishonest, and I'm not sorry. Amid all these stories about the shrinking middle class and shrinking wages; I find it strange that you even think this is something to try to argue about.
I also don't know what your obsession is with whatever chart it was that I posted whenever.

You know, I wrote a whole reply to each of the things above and I realized there wasn't any point. You accuse me of not understanding the issues so you've resorted to ad hominems and personal attacks. Obviously you're either faking it or you're under some delusion that there is a salient difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. So there's no point in putting work in to replying to you.

[Juan_Bottom]

You started it. So cry me a river. I'll put a water-wheel on in and grind some flour. Then I'll bake some fresh bread for NS. Then who's gonna look stupid? Not me.

You started the personal attacks and called me naive when I made the base statement that the Republican Party wants to repeal Obamacare. You want to run your mouth about how both the parties are exactly the same, but you can't defend that statement for one second. I'll carpet-bomb and destroy it, and you wont see anyone else take your side. It's easy. It all returns to my first argument that you're just angry about the country as a whole, and so you've become a reactionary. During the last great financial crisis, there were people just like you giving time to crazers so they could stand on soap boxes yelling at everyone about how the government didn't care about them. They were Communists, and Socialist, and Libertarians, and many other types of political philosophers and religious politicers that we don't remember.
Hindsight proved them all wrong.

I don't have hate or anger in my heart. I look at the government with Hope instead of Rage & Contempt. Yeah, the government kinda f*cked up. But they f*cked up in '29 too. Sh*t happens, but I don't need to hate every politician in the world. That's not Juan, baby.

[Night Strike]

You'll just love every politician and demand more governmental power and handouts?

[Juan_Bottom]

Like what?

Why are you even attacking me, he's the one who said that the Republicans and Democrats are on the same team. So you should be on my side here.

WAIT

I see what you did there. Well played.

[Juan_Bottom]

lolololol

I don't know what's funnier... that I got this recommendation based on my cookies or that I watched it.

[Juan_Bottom]

These are just funny. Does anyone else have any of these pictures of the elite putting little campaign signs up?

[Woodruff]

The idea that businesses would necessarily use the money that "could have gone to taxes" to hire more people and grow their business (rather than piling it up as profits) is equally ludicrous. Otherwise, why aren't we having the freaking largest boom in our nation's history over the last ten or so years?

And yet not one of you guys has pointed that out. I can't imagine why that would be.

Have we had lower taxes over the past ten or so years?

I simply picked "ten" out of randomality. So feel free to edit the range as you'd like. And yes, in comparison to the past, our current tax rates are quite low.

[Woodruff]

The idea that businesses would necessarily use the money that "could have gone to taxes" to hire more people and grow their business (rather than piling it up as profits) is equally ludicrous. Otherwise, why aren't we having the freaking largest boom in our nation's history over the last ten or so years?

And yet not one of you guys has pointed that out. I can't imagine why that would be.

We did have economic growth and prosperity from about 2003-2007 after the current tax rates were put in place.

It was a massive boom? Really? Because I definitely don't remember that. In fact, I specifically remember remaining in the military a bit longer in the hopes that the job market would improve before leaving.

However, we then had a bubble collapse and a president who campaigns (for 4 years) on wanting to raise taxes on successful people. And what has really eaten up all of that tax cut money has been the thousands of pages of new regulations that the government keeps piling on to businesses. When you have a government that continues to threaten to bring higher taxes while at the same time writing tons of new regulations, businesses choose to bank their money instead of expanding their company.

You should be a standup comedian.

[Juan_Bottom]

The idea that businesses would necessarily use the money that "could have gone to taxes" to hire more people and grow their business (rather than piling it up as profits) is equally ludicrous. Otherwise, why aren't we having the freaking largest boom in our nation's history over the last ten or so years?

And yet not one of you guys has pointed that out. I can't imagine why that would be.

We did have economic growth and prosperity from about 2003-2007 after the current tax rates were put in place. However, we then had a bubble collapse and a president who campaigns (for 4 years) on wanting to raise taxes on successful people. And what has really eaten up all of that tax cut money has been the thousands of pages of new regulations that the government keeps piling on to businesses. When you have a government that continues to threaten to bring higher taxes while at the same time writing tons of new regulations, businesses choose to bank their money instead of expanding their company.

oop, just saw this.

Relevant:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/study ... z26nKR3OfS

[BigBallinStalin]

lol. Apparently, only taxes bear a significant relation to economic growth.

[thegreekdog]

The idea that businesses would necessarily use the money that "could have gone to taxes" to hire more people and grow their business (rather than piling it up as profits) is equally ludicrous. Otherwise, why aren't we having the freaking largest boom in our nation's history over the last ten or so years?

And yet not one of you guys has pointed that out. I can't imagine why that would be.

Have we had lower taxes over the past ten or so years?

I simply picked "ten" out of randomality. So feel free to edit the range as you'd like. And yes, in comparison to the past, our current tax rates are quite low.

I think it's more like 35 years. And I think it's more personal income taxes than corporate income taxes. It also doesn't take into account state and local taxes or the fixes of "tax loopholes." I can only offer anecdotal evidence of "job creation" when a company's taxes are lowered through a means other than losses. Generally, if I can save my clients tax money, they funnel that money back into the business. Some of it may go to dividends or executive salaries, but it also goes to increased production costs and employment.

I often wondered whether that graph that shows overall wealth increasing much more than personal income takes into account taxes. I don't think it makes too much of a difference in any event.

[thegreekdog]

You started it. So cry me a river. I'll put a water-wheel on in and grind some flour. Then I'll bake some fresh bread for NS. Then who's gonna look stupid? Not me.

You started the personal attacks and called me naive when I made the base statement that the Republican Party wants to repeal Obamacare. You want to run your mouth about how both the parties are exactly the same, but you can't defend that statement for one second. I'll carpet-bomb and destroy it, and you wont see anyone else take your side. It's easy. It all returns to my first argument that you're just angry about the country as a whole, and so you've become a reactionary. During the last great financial crisis, there were people just like you giving time to crazers so they could stand on soap boxes yelling at everyone about how the government didn't care about them. They were Communists, and Socialist, and Libertarians, and many other types of political philosophers and religious politicers that we don't remember.
Hindsight proved them all wrong.

I don't have hate or anger in my heart. I look at the government with Hope instead of Rage & Contempt. Yeah, the government kinda f*cked up. But they f*cked up in '29 too. Sh*t happens, but I don't need to hate every politician in the world. That's not Juan, baby.

I'm not angry. I'm probably a little reactionary and I've probably gotten more reactionary since I started working. I don't hate the government either. I was trying to have a debate with you on various issues; that was clearly a mistake on my part. And one I should have realized from the jump. When you rely upon partisan websites to give you your information, you become a caricature. Clearly I've defended the statement that there is not a significant difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Clearly both liberals and conservatives on this website believe that as well (see, e.g. the isupport thread). Whether you're being Phatbottom, as BBS indicates, or whether you're serious, there does not appear to be any point in trying to convince you of anything.

[chang50]

Really that is just about the dumbest position,in a strong field,I have encountered on cc..At a stroke you have invalidated over 90% of the posts here if you actually believe what you just posted..How often do you have direct involvement in a topic prior to you posting?Should only atheists post on threads about atheism?You've excelled yourself with this one

i notice that you haven't commented on player's argument that "only women can decide whether abortion is okay or not"

probably because you agree with her

her position is dumber than his because private sector experience is actually relevant to the topic and not just an emotional appeal[/quote

Well you would be wrong in that assumption,and wrong to stereotype me as automatically supporting what you judge to be liberal positions,if you want my views I am happy to give them,but you might find them a tad nuanced.See its not nice to stereotype is it?

[john9blue]

However, we then had a bubble collapse and a president who campaigns (for 4 years) on wanting to raise taxes on successful people. And what has really eaten up all of that tax cut money has been the thousands of pages of new regulations that the government keeps piling on to businesses. When you have a government that continues to threaten to bring higher taxes while at the same time writing tons of new regulations, businesses choose to bank their money instead of expanding their company.

You should be a standup comedian.

really? you consider night strike to be as politically insightful as (for example) george carlin?

Well you would be wrong in that assumption,and wrong to stereotype me as automatically supporting what you judge to be liberal positions,if you want my views I am happy to give them,but you might find them a tad nuanced.See its not nice to stereotype is it?

i was not wrong when i said "probably". most people who hold your views on other positions are pro-choice.

feel free to post in one of the abortion threads about it, though... this isn't really the place.

[Woodruff]

However, we then had a bubble collapse and a president who campaigns (for 4 years) on wanting to raise taxes on successful people. And what has really eaten up all of that tax cut money has been the thousands of pages of new regulations that the government keeps piling on to businesses. When you have a government that continues to threaten to bring higher taxes while at the same time writing tons of new regulations, businesses choose to bank their money instead of expanding their company.

You should be a standup comedian.

really? you consider night strike to be as politically insightful as (for example) george carlin?

Really? You consider all standup comedians (or even most) to be as politically insightful as George Carlin?

[thegreekdog]

Thoughts?

Six million Americans will pay the health care tax rather than obtain coverage under President Obama’s health care law, according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate Wednesday — a 50 percent increase over CBO’s estimate of just two years ago.

CBO also said there will be 30 million people without insurance, though all but the 6 million will be exempt from the tax. The exempt residents are a combination of illegal immigrants and those with incomes too low to pay income taxes.

The agency said the government will collect about $7 billion from the tax in 2016, and $8 billion a year thereafter.

The projections apply to 2016, the point at which most of President Obama’s health care law will be implemented and the penalty for failing to buy coverage will have risen to its full amount of $695 per person or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

The agency gave several reasons for revising its projections. For one thing, Congress has passed legislation requiring Americans to pay back more health insurance subsidies if they’re overpaid, making buying coverage less attractive.

The economy is also improving more slowly than expected, leading to lower wages and salaries that could make it harder to buy coverage.

And some low-income Americans may have less access to expanded Medicaid programs than originally expected. Several states are expected to opt out of expanding Medicaid, after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can’t respond by stripping away all their funding for the program.

The six million expected to pay the penalty is a relatively small percentage of the 30 million non-elderly residents who will be uninsured in 2016.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... h-care-ta/

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, that was entertaining. Thanks, TGD.

It's still too early to say what will happen, but the noted problems on future ineffectiveness of the plan are alarming, and the (un)intended consequences of implementing policies which "[make] buying coverage less attractive" are interesting.

[Woodruff]

Thoughts?

Six million Americans will pay the health care tax rather than obtain coverage under President Obama’s health care law, according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate Wednesday — a 50 percent increase over CBO’s estimate of just two years ago.

CBO also said there will be 30 million people without insurance, though all but the 6 million will be exempt from the tax. The exempt residents are a combination of illegal immigrants and those with incomes too low to pay income taxes.

The agency said the government will collect about $7 billion from the tax in 2016, and $8 billion a year thereafter.

The projections apply to 2016, the point at which most of President Obama’s health care law will be implemented and the penalty for failing to buy coverage will have risen to its full amount of $695 per person or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

The agency gave several reasons for revising its projections. For one thing, Congress has passed legislation requiring Americans to pay back more health insurance subsidies if they’re overpaid, making buying coverage less attractive.

The economy is also improving more slowly than expected, leading to lower wages and salaries that could make it harder to buy coverage.

And some low-income Americans may have less access to expanded Medicaid programs than originally expected. Several states are expected to opt out of expanding Medicaid, after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can’t respond by stripping away all their funding for the program.

The six million expected to pay the penalty is a relatively small percentage of the 30 million non-elderly residents who will be uninsured in 2016.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... h-care-ta/

My first thought is...how does the CBO figure out something like that (the six million figure)? I mean, I know it's an estimate, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would really lend itself to estimation at this point.

[BigBallinStalin]

It doesn't matter because it's good enough for government work. There's always some team of economists willing to be paid to make their best estimate on data which is nonexistent.

They might get creative with the econometrics, but at some point, it becomes more of an art and less of a science.

[Juan_Bottom]

Paul Ryan booed at AARP Convention in New Orleans.

[Night Strike]

That's because the AARP has sold out seniors by supporting Obamacare while Paul Ryan opposes it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Right. Old people are dumb and can't think for themselves. They need you to do it for them.

[Juan_Bottom]

I thought that this was a joke and that the homeowner was doing some political satire. But that's not the case.




http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/ ... est-austin
Updated 6:28 p.m. Wednesday I called the homeowner to ask about his display, citing my concerns as a fellow Austinite. He replied, and I quote, "I don't really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not. You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you. I don't give a shit. If you don't like it, don't come down my street."

Ironically, the homeowner in question, Bud Johnson, won "Yard of the Month" in August 2010 from his Homeowners Association. I guess his display was a little different that month?

Update, 10:00 a.m. Thursday: the homeowner has added an American flag to his display.

Update, 9:26 a.m. Friday: the homeowner has cut down the lynched chair, placed it on the lawn, and -- wait for it -- claimed it wasn't racist.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, that was suppose to be racist? Honestly, I thought it symbolized hanging a Democrat...

I guess if you consistently apply RACISM!! to many actions all the time, then is it a surprise that racism seems to be everywhere?