Who to Blame if Obamacare is not passed?

If President Obama fails to pass this health bill, this will be a turning point in his Presidency. He has made Health care his number one priority. Thanks to the remarks of Senator DeMint who stated this will be Obama's "waterloo" should he fail, Obama is on the defensive taking his campaign on the road attempting to garner more support for his plan.

I do not want this particular Health Care plan for various reasons. However, I think the Bill will pass solely because the Democrats would lose face having the majority in both houses. They have no alternative but to pass a Bill. However, I think the liberal parameters of the bill passed in the House will be butchered and trimmed tremendously by the Senate who is not as liberal as the House.

If this bill is Not passed, I will blame Pelosi and her overconfidence in dismissing the "Blue Dog" democrats. The GOP has no power to stop this. The only party to blame are the Democrats themselves. Who will you blame if this bill is killed?

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/rever...mb-200x264.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

If President Obama fails to pass this health bill, this will be a turning point in his Presidency. He has made Health care his number one priority. Thanks to the remarks of Senator DeMint who stated this will be Obama's "waterloo" should he fail, Obama is on the defensive taking his campaign on the road attempting to garner more support for his plan.

I do not want this particular Health Care plan for various reasons. However, I think the Bill will pass solely because the Democrats would lose face having the majority in both houses. They have no alternative but to pass a Bill. However, I think the liberal parameters of the bill passed in the House will be butchered and trimmed tremendously by the Senate who is not as liberal as the House.

If this bill is Not passed, I will blame Pelosi and her overconfidence in dismissing the "Blue Dog" democrats. The GOP has no power to stop this. The only party to blame are the Democrats themselves. Who will you blame if this bill is killed?

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/rever...mb-200x264.jpg

---

I won't "blame" anyone. I'll give full credit to the Blue Dog Democrats and moderates who know -- and, if they don't, will get an earful from constituents during the next recess -- they will not be returning to their current jobs in January 2011 if it passes.

your "various reasons"-you have health insurance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

If President Obama fails to pass this health bill, this will be a turning point in his Presidency. He has made Health care his number one priority. Thanks to the remarks of Senator DeMint who stated this will be Obama's "waterloo" should he fail, Obama is on the defensive taking his campaign on the road attempting to garner more support for his plan.

I do not want this particular Health Care plan for various reasons. However, I think the Bill will pass solely because the Democrats would lose face having the majority in both houses. They have no alternative but to pass a Bill. However, I think the liberal parameters of the bill passed in the House will be butchered and trimmed tremendously by the Senate who is not as liberal as the House.

If this bill is Not passed, I will blame Pelosi and her overconfidence in dismissing the "Blue Dog" democrats. The GOP has no power to stop this. The only party to blame are the Democrats themselves. Who will you blame if this bill is killed?

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/rever...mb-200x264.jpg

---

you asked a question and then you answered it. we get it you don't like obama and his healthcare proposals.

stupid thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

your "various reasons"-you have health insurance

---

And you have health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

you asked a question and then you answered it. we get it you don't like obama and his healthcare proposals.

stupid thread

---

It's a question meant for discussion. Who will you blame if it's not passed? I gave my opinion, isn't that what discussion is for?

I can just see all the liberals saying "It's President Bush's fault!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

your "various reasons"-you have health insurance

---

Yes, I actually have to work to pay for it. The American way you know. You work for what you want, nothing is for free. You don't have health insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

Yes, I actually have to work to pay for it. The American way you know. You work for what you want, nothing is for free. You don't have health insurance?

---

We're all real impressed by your self-reliance, but there are millions of Americans who work their asses off (just as hard and/or harder then you do) and either don't have benefits, or don't make enough to provide their own. What an in-compassionate, simple-minded and selfish view you've cultivated.

Well, here's a simple question. Why do people have the right to something that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Americans spend a considerable amount of their treasure learning to provide?

Why do I have a unalienable right to medical care?

People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their lives going to medical school so they can provide medical care. Hospitals spend millions on facilities and equipment so these people have a place to practice their trade. Companies spend billions to research and develop medical techniques, equipment, and therapies so that we Americans have the opportunity to receive the most advanced treatments known in the world.

If I have an unalienable right to the fruits of these people's labor, why aren't they trained, equipped, and developed for free?

"It's President Bush's fault"

Well, let's see...

dubya gave $800B in tax cuts to wealthy Americans.

dubya give $50B/year in sudsidies to BigPharma so it can compete with Medicare.

dubya made illegal any negotiation of drug prices, so the US govt pays full list price.

Over 10 years, there's the $1T that health reform is supposed to cost.

dubya's bogus Iraq war and botching of Afghanistan costs another few $T over the lifetime of the fucked-up vets, and humongous interest on the debts he ran up to pay for those wars.

yep, dubya was the super-patriot to beat all super-patriots, fucking up the country while protecting and enriching the corps and capitalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"It's President Bush's fault"

Well, let's see...

dubya gave $800B in tax cuts to wealthy Americans.

---

Which considerably raised federal revenues. Just as tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton raised federal revenues.

Bush's tax cuts are a non-starter when you consider they led to a net gain in revenues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_duex

dubya give $50B/year in sudsidies to BigPharma so it can compete with Medicare.

---

When did Medicare start developing pharmaceuticals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_duex

dubya made illegal any negotiation of drug prices, so the US govt pays full list price.

---

Good. People deserve to be paid for their goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_duex

Over 10 years, there's the $1T that health reform is supposed to cost.

---

Remove the $800 Billion tax cuts that resulted in a net revenue gain, and you're still nowhere near One Trillion Dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, here's a simple question. Why do people have the right to something that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Americans spend a considerable amount of their treasure learning to provide?

Why do I have a unalienable right to medical care?

People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their lives going to medical school so they can provide medical care. Hospitals spend millions on facilities and equipment so these people have a place to practice their trade. Companies spend billions to research and develop medical techniques, equipment, and therapies so that we Americans have the opportunity to receive the most advanced treatments known in the world.

If I have an unalienable right to the fruits of these people's labor, why aren't they trained, equipped, and developed for free?

---

Typical, dumb conservative. Too stupid to see the issue in any other terms than binary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

Typical, dumb conservative. Too stupid to see the issue in any other terms than binary.

---

Typical liberal. Too stupid to see if you start giving stuff away, the people who produce it for profit will quit and quality will degrade.

Quote:

---

We're all real impressed by your self-reliance, but there are millions of Americans who work their asses off (just as hard and/or harder then you do) and either don't have benefits, or don't make enough to provide their own. What an in-compassionate, simple-minded and selfish view you've cultivated.

---

There's even more millions who don't do shit, but get everything free, and leech off the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

There's even more millions who don't do shit, but get everything free, and leech off the rest of us.

---

Approaching 50%...a tipping point.

I don't think this is Obamas waterloo. This free health is a complete cluster fuck of stupidity but he can keep sending troops to Afghanistan to keep the fighting over there so we our safe here. Obama can keep open Gitmo so we don't let terrorist continue their fight against us. He can shut Pelosi the hell up and get her out of the house. He can lower taxes. There is alot for him to do so he does not become the worst president in US history. Hopefully he gets back from vacation and says the stimulus package is not working and re-write the thing with over 90 percent of the money left. Maybe this time he can keep his promise having no earmarks in the thing. Stop talking about taxing soda. He said he would not raise taxes on people making less than 200 G's but he he did when he hiked up smokes. Those smokers pay a shit load in taxes. No more talk of Cap and Trade. Tell N. Korea we are coming next missle we see launched. Tell Europe we saved ur ass and I will not apologize for it anymore. Stop spending millions of dollars on date nights. Don't call a entire police organization stupid when he has zero clue what happened. I should say "acted stupidly". Lets hope he does a better job SOON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

We're all real impressed by your self-reliance, but there are millions of Americans who work their asses off (just as hard and/or harder then you do) and either don't have benefits, or don't make enough to provide their own. What an in-compassionate, simple-minded and selfish view you've cultivated.

---

Why don't people understand that health care is not a right. It is a commodity to buy.

When businesses first started offering health care to their employees, it was to bring the best people to them to pick from. It was an incentive to work for a particular company. Now if you want to work for someone that provides health insurance, then bust your ass more learning the skills those places need! I have. I've busted my ass for years learning enough mechanics, physics, electronics, chemistry etc. to be were I am. For someone to demand the same things I busted my ass for is appalling to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"It's President Bush's fault"
[opens mouth and only idiotic liberal talking points come out]

---

Don't you have your own brain to use?

Get this through your heads libtards.

Health care is not a right. You have to earn or pay for it yourself.

To demand it be provided for you shows the mentality of a child who still lives with his parents providing for him.

Just move back in with mommy you fucking crybabies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

We're all real impressed by your self-reliance, but there are millions of Americans who work their asses off (just as hard and/or harder then you do) and either don't have benefits, or don't make enough to provide their own. What an in-compassionate, simple-minded and selfish view you've cultivated.

---

Work harder & smarter, also don't have kids until you can afford them.

Life is not that hard to figure out. You losers gots to drag us down with you though, we get it.

It's not even about that though. There is plenty of money to throw some bones at the deserving during rough patches in their life. The problem is government can never seem to get an effective real world policy through. Instead their agenda is to make it look like they are helping the less fortunate but in reality they just want to attack the successful as a means of social control. That's the rub, braaah.

I hope you all lose your jobs. Scratch that, I hope you all keep your jobs, but lose your health insurance. Then I hope you all get cancer. Then I hope no matter how hard you work, you can't afford treatment. Then I hope you try anyway and go in to bankruptcy. Then I hope your re-missive cancer comes back(or never goes away). By that time, I hope you've lost your job. Then I hope you go to a hospital for more chemo. When they find out they've already taken all your money, I hope they tell you to FUCK OFF & DIE.

If you dumbass conservatives can only see an option between free, or this fucked up system we got now, that's what I seriously hope happens; your death at the hands of the medical industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

Life is not that hard to figure out. You losers gots to drag us down with you though, we get it.

---

I don't have kids and I pay my taxes just like you do. STFU.

Obama will do what he always does when something goes wrong under his watch, blame it on Bush. It will be Bush's fault when Obama's communistic health care plan fails. That's what Obama will do. Book it.

The old blame Bush tactic. Has worked very well for him but it is coming to end. Kind of hard to blame him when Obama is doing some of the samethings especially when it comes to protecting our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

The old blame Bush tactic. Has worked very well for him but it is coming to end. Kind of hard to blame him when Obama is doing some of the samethings especially when it comes to protecting our country.

---

I don't think it's worked for him at all. The Bush administration left him a deficit that could have more than been covered by the money he's not spending from the Stimulus bill that was a moral imperative.

I think Obama stepped in with an approximately 400 Billion dollar deficit. A deficit, by the way, he facilitated by voting in favor of the Bush Administration spending initiatives.

The Stimulus, which has an ultimate 800 Billion dollar price tag has -- for the most part -- not been spent. If Obama were smart, he'd commit to not spending it, paying off the existing deficit and stopping all this other Cap and Tax and Health Care for everyone nonsense.

But, he ain't smart.

And, blaming Bush is one of the reasons his poll number keep dropping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't think it's worked for him at all. The Bush administration left him a deficit that could have more than been covered by the money he's not spending from the Stimulus bill that was a moral imperative.

I think Obama stepped in with an approximately 400 Billion dollar deficit. A deficit, by the way, he facilitated by voting in favor of the Bush Administration spending initiatives.

The Stimulus, which has an ultimate 800 Billion dollar price tag has -- for the most part -- not been spent. If Obama were smart, he'd commit to not spending it, paying off the existing deficit and stopping all this other Cap and Tax and Health Care for everyone nonsense.

But, he ain't smart.

And, blaming Bush is one of the reasons his poll number keep dropping.

---

But it got him the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

But it got him the job.

---

No, making promises he had no intention of keeping and obscuring his activist past effectively is what got him elected.

Hope and change was just a campaign slogan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why don't people understand that health care is not a right. It is a commodity to buy.


Health care is not a right. You have to earn or pay for it yourself.

To demand it be provided for you shows the mentality of a child who still lives with his parents providing for him.

Just move back in with mommy you fucking crybabies.

---

Any chance the RNC campaigns on this? I hope they do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Any chance the RNC campaigns on this? I hope they do

---

Any chance liberals will get an honest bone in their body and realize, and accept, that people have no right to the fruits of other people's labor?

Any chance of any liberal honestly pointing out their socialist agenda takes from producers and gives to non-producers?

Nah, probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Any chance liberals will get an honest bone in their body and realize, and accept, that people have no right to the fruits of other people's labor?

Any chance of any liberal honestly pointing out their socialist agenda takes from producers and gives to non-producers?

Nah, probably not.

---

So are you saying that the people who own the most shouldn't pay the most?



You do realize that we all pay already don't you? For everyone else's healthcare that is... your an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Any chance liberals will get an honest bone in their body and realize, and accept, that people have no right to the fruits of other people's labor?

Any chance of any liberal honestly pointing out their socialist agenda takes from producers and gives to non-producers?

Nah, probably not.

---

Quote:

---

How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves Luck_The_Fakers_-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --Luck_The_Fakers_ who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population Luck_The_Fakers_-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

Television news is another area that used to be roped off from the profit motive. When Walter Cronkite died last week, it was odd to see news anchor after news anchor talking about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. I thought, "Gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it."

But maybe they aren't. Because unlike in Cronkite's day, today's news has to make a profit like all the other divisions in a media conglomerate. That's why it wasn't surprising to see the CBS Evening News broadcast live from the Staples Center for two nights this month, just in case Michael Jackson came back to life and sold Iran nuclear weapons. In Uncle Walter's time, the news division was a loss leader. Making money was the job of The Beverly Hillbillies. And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska to hang out with the Palin family, the news is The Beverly Hillbillies.

And finally, there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So are you saying that the people who own the most shouldn't pay the most?

---

I'm saying everyone should pay proportionately.

10% of a dime being the same as 10% of a Billion Dollars. If that's what you mean, yeah, that's what I'm saying.

But, when you have nearly 50% of the population paying absolutely nothing and 1% paying nearly 50% of the remainder, something's out of kilter.

Bill Maher is an idiot.

Remove profit motive and you remove productivity.

It would be more like "Alaman" for Barack if it happened, dude will still have over 3 years to live in the House even after losing this battle, unlike Napoleon who got immediately deported to an island right after losing the battle in waterloo. While, Barack would have no one to blame but himself and his left-wing political viewpoints, similarly it was also the fault of Napoleon himself to get his blood boiled by his own arrogance and finally make himself the enemy to the entire europe. There shouldn't be any doubt on Barack's genuine kindness and sweet hope for his fellow citizens, but dude chose a radical way somehow which may not be the best fit for America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Bill Maher is an idiot.

Remove profit motive and you remove productivity.

---

You are an idiot.

Remove absolutes from your logic and you'll remove your own stupidity.

Every day that Obama is president, the Bush years don't look as bad as they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Every day that Obama is president, the Bush years don't look as bad as they were.

---

I'm not sick of Barack himself though, dude just has some weird political opinions that I don't like and can't be approval of. Health care is a system rooted in nation wide and has been suffering corruptions for many decades, obviously dude cannot resolve all the problems overnight once and for all. It's just like dude is trying to heal a tree from worms by soaking it up with formalin, it doesn't work and even the whole tree may get killed, but that's what a typical left-wing politician always dreams to do. You can never transfer 1,001 nights into real life.

Damn, another shot in their own feet.

'RETARDED' HOUSE BILL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Damn, another shot in their own feet.

'RETARDED' HOUSE BILL

---

What's wrong with the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What's wrong with the bill?

---

You mean, other than nationalizing 17% of the nation's economy, killing free enterprise, and establishing a health care system that will lead to rationing of degraded medical services?

Nothing.

I am so tired of this shit. Retard is a no, no word now. If these retards are retarded we should be able to use the word retard. You fags get mad at me for using the word fags when talking to fags. Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see how "retard" might be a little offensive... but "mental retardation" or "mentally retarded" are just a statement of fact about people that have that disability.

what is the PC term for retarded now? I think "mentally challenged" is more insulting myself.

In my younger days, the non-PC 1970s, I never really used "fag". I usually said "homo" - just an abbreviation of the scientific description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You fags get mad at me for using the word fags when talking to fags. Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Nobody gets mad at you, but plenty of people do think it's indicative that you, yourself, are a self-loathing closet fag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

I can see how "retard" might be a little offensive... but "mental retardation" or "mentally retarded" are just a statement of fact about people that have that disability.

what is the PC term for retarded now? I think "mentally challenged" is more insulting myself.

---

You're right, of course.

It's just ironic that the left-leaning liberals of our Country, who have encouraged all this politically correct labeling, over the years, is getting bitten by their own dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You mean, other than nationalizing 17% of the nation's economy, killing free enterprise, and establishing a health care system that will lead to rationing of degraded medical services?

Nothing.

---

healthcare is already rationed....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

healthcare is already rationed....

---

Due to government interference.

Due to the for-profit sector raping the shit out of sick people for every dollar they're worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

Due to the for-profit sector raping the shit out of sick people for every dollar they're worth.

---

Do explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

Nobody gets mad at you, but plenty of people do think it's indicative that you, yourself, are a self-loathing closet fag.

---

I hate fish does that really mean I want to eat it all the time? I hate Obama does that mean I really love him? I hate shaving does that mean I really like it? I hate MTV does that mean I have it on my TV all the time? I hate Lindsay Lohan does that mean I am standing in line the night before the movie opens? I speak of all these things alot in my life. Basically everything I hate I really love or want to be?.....interesting, very interesting. Truth be told you are a fag and that is one of the thing fags say so they can justify being a fag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

that is one of the thing Sigmund Freud says so he can justify me being a fag.

---

fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

fixed.

---

Gay

balli laid out some psychological ownage, nicely done

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I hate fish does that really mean I want to eat it all the time? I hate Obama does that mean I really love him? I hate shaving does that mean I really like it? I hate MTV does that mean I have it on my TV all the time? I hate Lindsay Lohan does that mean I am standing in line the night before the movie opens? I speak of all these things alot in my life. Basically everything I hate I really love or want to be?.....interesting, very interesting. Truth be told you are a fag and that is one of the thing fags say so they can justify being a fag.

---

I mean if your don't like the president of this country, then why did you immigrate here to the United States. The US hasn't seen any difference you have ever made to herself, even if there was something you actually did, it would definitely be harm rather than anything good. If you fucking hate Obama and what he does, then please give us some reasons for your hatred but before you can collect enough proof to convince us your thoughts were fucking true, please stay silent or move back to your own country that you deserve to live in. After all, you're a rockets fan and also pretty dumb, I think that's enough to explain why you hate US so much for no fucking reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogue

I mean if your don't like the president of this country, then why did you immigrate here to the United States. The US hasn't seen any difference you have ever made to herself, even if there was something you actually did, it would definitely be harm rather than anything good. If you fucking hate Obama and what he does, then please give us some reasons for your hatred but before you can collect enough proof to convince us your thoughts were fucking true, please stay silent or move back to your own country that you deserve to live in. After all, you're a rockets fan and also pretty dumb, I think that's enough to explain why you hate US so much for no fucking reason.

---

gay

I'm gay and I hate myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

If this bill is Not passed, I will blame Pelosi and her overconfidence in dismissing the "Blue Dog" democrats. The GOP has no power to stop this. The only party to blame are the Democrats themselves. Who will you blame if this bill is killed?

---

I'll blame no one. I'll be quite thankful.

Here are some Usual Suspects

July 27, 2009
An Incoherent Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.

Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

( costs = revenues for Blue Dog owners. )

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

Nice Boutons.

Print an article from an intellectual liberal pundit that knows when to lie about the economic facts, to make himself look good.

Have anything that unbiased by chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Have anything that unbiased by chance?

---

Unbiased is a relative term...

i'd blame the people that wrote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Unbiased is a relative term...

---

Well, he clearly states as fact what is known to economists otherwise, and is a Nobel Prize winner of economics!

He's a fucking liar! Knowing he intentionally lied in one area makes the entire article suspect. Besides, he is a self proclaimed liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, he clearly states as fact what is known to economists otherwise, and is a Nobel Prize winner of economics!

He's a fucking liar! Knowing he intentionally lied in one area makes the entire article suspect. Besides, he is a self proclaimed liberal.

---

I am going to side with a Nobel prize winner in economics on this one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, he clearly states as fact what is known to economists otherwise, and is a Nobel Prize winner of economics!

He's a fucking liar! Knowing he intentionally lied in one area makes the entire article suspect. Besides, he is a self proclaimed liberal.

---

A quick rundown through the article, and I don't see the author claiming to be unbiased (nor factual for that matter). It would actually be good to read what your counter points are to what the guy's opinion is instead of taking you at face value.

After all, and unlike you, he *IS* a Nobel prize winner.

the nobel prize kinda lost its luster with me.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...5125008551.jpg
especially after Irena Sendler gets beat by this idiot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

After all, and unlike you, he *IS* a Nobel prize winner.

---

The Nobel Prize doesn't mean shit any more. Hell, Al Gore won!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

A quick rundown through the article, and I don't see the author claiming to be unbiased (nor factual for that matter). It would actually be good to read what your counter points are to what the guy's opinion is instead of taking you at face value.

---

Are you agreeing that he is not being factual?

Quote:

---

where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

---

This tax cut added to government revenues. Without it, the deficit would have been larger. Any unbiased economist will concur that the tax breaks spurred economic growth and because of that more people had money to pay in taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you agreeing that he is not being factual?

---

No, I'm actually disputing he ever claimed his opinion was fact. You merely jumped the gun on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This tax cut added to government revenues. Without it, the deficit would have been larger.

---

Opinion, really. We obviously will never know what would have happened if those tax cuts would have not passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Any unbiased economist will concur that the tax breaks spurred economic growth and because of that more people had money to pay in taxes.

---

That they were meant to to do that? Arguable. But that they actually did that is clearly not the case, at least in this instance. You have to look no further than the economic stimulus package that came a few years after. Why would you need to stimulate the economy is you're in the middle of 'economic growth'? If anything, it contributed to the growth of the housing bubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Any unbiased economist will concur that the tax breaks spurred economic growth and because of that more people had money to pay in taxes.

---

There is no such thing as an "unbiased economist."

With a record like this on important issues, why should we trust democrats?

Besides, how long did it take President Obama to pick a dog, yet he wants to rush health care reform. Don't democrats realize how much more complicated it is than selecting a pet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Besides, how long did it take President Obama to pick a dog, yet he wants to rush health care reform.

---

nice. never realized that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

With a record like this on important issues, why should we trust democrats?

---

You don't have to. That's why you didn't vote for them in the first place.

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.

Then add in the $800B for the estate tax cuts, and you have real money to fuel a housing/asset bubble.

who wants it passed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.

Then add in the $800B for the estate tax cuts, and you have real money to fuel a housing/asset bubble.

---

You are wrong.

Assume the two hypothetical extremes:

1) At 0% taxation, the government makes no revenue.

2) At 100% taxation, the government makes no revenue. sure, the first year, they confiscate everyone's wealth, but then who in their right mind is going to work, just to have it all taken away?

Somewhere between 0% and 100% is a taxation level that will make maximum revenue. It's not a point to just simply cut it in half either. Now since we have a history of the federal revenue being about 18% to 18.5% of the GNP, no matter what tax rate we use through history, we are at the wrong side of the curve. We need to continue to reduce taxes.

The "static" thinking person cannot understand how reduces taxes increases revenues. The mechanism is actually not too complicated. When individuals have more money, they simply spend more. The extra money creates more jobs, and the cycle slowly, over years, balances to a point of greater GNP, thus, greater revenues. 18% of a larger economy is more than 18% of an economy choked by tax rates.

When you increase the taxation of people and corporations, there is less money in the free economy to be spent. Jobs are lost. 18% at a smaller economy is less revenue for the government.

Right now, the tax cuts implemented by President Bush and a republican congress are set to expire next year. The 10% marginal rate will go back to 15%. 15%, to 25% to 28%, 28% to 31%, 33% to 35%, and 35% to 39.6%.

Do you guys paying the 10% marginal rate want to see your taxes increase by 50%? My god. The tax paying lower income received the biggest tax break. Myself, I used to drift between the 28% to 31% rate. I'm in the 25% rate this year after my deductions, but will go into paying 28% again. I'll be paying almost $2,000 more.

Let/s be conservative, and call it $1,500. Take that $1,500 and consider 200 other people in my situation. $300,000 less in the local economy. That's at least 1 to 5 jobs (depending on wages, probably 2 at my wages and benefits) directly affected because me and 20 other middle class workers are paying higher taxes.

The opposite holds true. When you reduce taxes, the free flow on money in the economy reduces spending, and reduces the need for employees.

Either way you look at it. Increasing or decreasing the money in the economy, it eventually gets taxed out. That's why the natural balance point is in the area of 18%.

Lower taxes = bigger economy = larger revenue at 18% of GNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You are wrong.

Assume the two hypothetical extremes:

1) At 0% taxation, the government makes no revenue.

2) At 100% taxation, the government makes no revenue. sure, the first year, they confiscate everyone's wealth, but then who in their right mind is going to work, just to have it all taken away?

Somewhere between 0% and 100% is a taxation level that will make maximum revenue. It's not a point to just simply cut it in half either. Now since we have a history of the federal revenue being about 18% to 18.5% of the GNP, no matter what tax rate we use through history, we are at the wrong side of the curve. We need to continue to reduce taxes.

The "static" thinking person cannot understand how reduces taxes increases revenues. The mechanism is actually not too complicated. When individuals have more money, they simply spend more. The extra money creates more jobs, and the cycle slowly, over years, balances to a point of greater GNP, thus, greater revenues. 18% of a larger economy is more than 18% of an economy choked by tax rates.

When you increase the taxation of people and corporations, there is less money in the free economy to be spent. Jobs are lost. 18% at a smaller economy is less revenue for the government.

Right now, the tax cuts implemented by President Bush and a republican congress are set to expire next year. The 10% marginal rate will go back to 15%. 15%, to 25% to 28%, 28% to 31%, 33% to 35%, and 35% to 39.6%.

Do you guys paying the 10% marginal rate want to see your taxes increase by 50%? My god. The tax paying lower income received the biggest tax break. Myself, I used to drift between the 28% to 31% rate. I'm in the 25% rate this year after my deductions, but will go into paying 28% again. I'll be paying almost $2,000 more.

Let/s be conservative, and call it $1,500. Take that $1,500 and consider 200 other people in my situation. $300,000 less in the local economy. That's at least 1 to 5 jobs (depending on wages, probably 2 at my wages and benefits) directly affected because me and 20 other middle class workers are paying higher taxes.

The opposite holds true. When you reduce taxes, the free flow on money in the economy reduces spending, and reduces the need for employees.

Either way you look at it. Increasing or decreasing the money in the economy, it eventually gets taxed out. That's why the natural balance point is in the area of 18%.

Lower taxes = bigger economy = larger revenue at 18% of GNP.

---

Spinning the wheel

What's next? Laffer curve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Spinning the wheel

What's next? Laffer curve?

---

How can you fact check such a thing?

Fact check is not always correct. They make errors like anyone else. This is one of them if they actually claim, as fact, rather than opinion, that revenues would have been higher.

STATISTICS DO NOT MAKE FACTS!

I did not tread all of it, but they are flat out wrong if they stated it as fact! Without living an alternate time line, it's opinion. Not fact.

Fact Check lost credibility with that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Spinning the wheel

What's next? Laffer curve?

---

Are you suggesting Laffer's theory is flawed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Are you suggesting Laffer's theory is flawed?

---

I think I've been there before with the "El - I don't Know-No" before, and am tired of repeating myself. Have so may threads to catch up on, or I would have said something similar. However...

ElNono, please read this piece of Laffer's work if you hadn't:

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
by Arthur B. Laffer

and wiki:

Laffer Curve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

How can you fact check such a thing?

---

It's not really complicated at all, and it involves zero statistics.

Operating below the 'acceptable taxing threshold':
When you increase taxes, tax collection increases.
When you decrease taxes, tax collection decreases.

You don't need the Laffer curve to know that:
If you increase taxes and tax collection decreases, then taxes are too high.
If you decrease taxes and tax collection increases, then you're back below the 'acceptable taxing threshold'.

That 'acceptable taxing threshold' is a constantly moving target, and depends on many economic factors, such as health of the economy in general, job availability and even economic class of the individuals. This is part of the reason we have a tiered tax system.

Laffer didn't invent anything with his curve, and he said as much himself.
It's just a clear way to explain how taxing levels work so the average Joe can understand it.

With this information in hand, we know that:
- The Bush tax cuts were applied while we were still below the 'acceptable taxing threshold', because tax revenues actually went down right after the cuts.
- There's no such thing as a '18%' silver bullet. The peak of the curve is a constant moving target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think I've been there before with the "El - I don't Know-No" before, and am tired of repeating myself. Have so may threads to catch up on, or I would have said something similar. However...

ElNono, please read this piece of Laffer's work if you hadn't:

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
by Arthur B. Laffer

and wiki:

Laffer Curve

---

We discussed this before. You think Laffer's work supports your theory that less taxes = blooming economy in all cases, and it really doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

We discussed this before. You think Laffer's work supports your theory that less taxes = blooming economy in all cases, and it really doesn't.

---

Bullshit. You shouldn't assume what I mean. Ask if you don't know, instead of showing your ignorance.

I say we are at the side of the curve that we need to reduce taxes for optimum revenues. Once they are reduced so much, farther deducing them would reduce tax revenues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's not really complicated at all, and it involves zero statistics.

Operating below the 'acceptable taxing threshold':
When you increase taxes, tax collection increases.
When you decrease taxes, tax collection decreases.

---

No shit Sherlock. I say we are above the threshold. Not below it. The Bush Tax cuts proved it. I rather certain we got close to the optimum threshold, but not into the "below" category.

Not concerned as much with people who don't have health care, such as myself. More concerned about people who pay a lot of money for health care and get denied it when they need it most.

Besides, why should the company I work for bear the brunt of the responsibility for my health care? I'd rather them pay us more money and we choose the health care to fit our needs, or to have a blanket tax on corporations (imaginary people) that distributes the burden evenly.

Either way, the current system blows. When you are afraid to purchase insurance as an individual because there is no guarantee that money will be there if you need it, the system is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Bullshit. You shouldn't assume what I mean. Ask if you don't know, instead of showing your ignorance.

I say we are at the side of the curve that we need to reduce taxes for optimum revenues. Once they are reduced so much, farther deducing them would reduce tax revenues.

---

I don't assume anything. If the only flag you wave is the tax cut flag, then there's nothing left to the imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No shit Sherlock. I say we are above the threshold. Not below it. The Bush Tax cuts proved it. I rather certain we got close to the optimum threshold, but not into the "below" category.

---

Now you're the one assuming when you don't have to. Go take a look at the tax revenue following the tax cuts: They decreased. Meaning, we were still below the tax threshold when the tax cuts passed. Plus you keep arguing for this 'optimum' threshold, which basically does not exist. I'd like to see what scientific foundation you used to determine what this 'optimum' threshold is. I suspect that it has to do with you 'gut' more than anything else, considering most every economist in the world has been trying to devise a formula for it, and so far has failed miserably at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

Besides, why should the company I work for bear the brunt of the responsibility for my health care?

---

It's become tradition. When companies started offering, with their own free will, it was used as an insentive to get a larger pool of qualified people to select from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

I'd rather them pay us more money and we choose the health care to fit our needs, or to have a blanket tax on corporations (imaginary people) that distributes the burden evenly.

---

Same here. I would prefer a health saving account, and I would only buy catastrophic insurance coverage. I would love to have an extra $500 to $1000 a month in my pocket, rather than what it costs my employer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

Either way, the current system blows. When you are afraid to purchase insurance as an individual because there is no guarantee that money will be there if you need it, the system is broken.

---

Also lacks the proper competition from excessive regulations. Regulations also drive up real medicals casts. Then of course, there's the cost of insurance the providers must pay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Now you're the one assuming when you don't have to. Go take a look at the tax revenue following the tax cuts: They decreased. Meaning, we were still below the tax threshold when the tax cuts passed. Plus you keep arguing for this 'optimum' threshold, which basically does not exist.

---

Relative to when? What's the source if your information? Factual data, or pundits?

Taxes were too high under Clinton. Too much of the GNP was taxed, leading to disaster when the markets popped. We never achieved the peak revenues by GNP we had after the Bush Tax cuts because there was no Y2K hoax driving purchases, but the tax cuts did reverse the trend. People had more money to spend, and the revenues increased. Sure, it never matched the revenues under the Y2K scare driving the market, but they did increase once implemented.

By GNP:

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...tes_01-850.jpg

By dollars:

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...tes_02-580.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Relative to when? What's the source if your information? Factual data, or pundits?

---

Are the CBO guys pundits? I'm pretty sure they work with raw data.

The Revenue Outlook
Chapter 4, page 93:

Receipts in Recent Years. Receipts from corporate income taxes—like those from individual income taxes— rose relative to the size of the economy in the 1990s, fell sharply between 2000 and 2003, and rebounded strongly in recent years (see Figure4-3 on page 79). The recession in 2001 reduced profits and tax revenues substantially. Business tax incentives enacted in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 further reduced revenues. Those incentives allowed firms to expense (immediately deduct from their taxable income) a portion of any investment made in equipment between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2004. Prior to 2005, when they expired, those partial expensing provisions both reduced taxable corporate profits and tax payments and increased corporate refunds, thereby reducing net corporate tax receipts. By 2003, corporate receipts as a share of GDP fell to 1.2 percent, their lowest share since 1983. Especially strong profit growth since 2003, combined with expiration of the tax incentives, caused corporate receipts to rise to 2.7 percent of GDP by 2006, their highest share since 1978.

------------------------
(emphasis mine)

And BTW, those graphs you posted do nothing other than support my point. Tax revenues did decrease after the tax cuts. Thanks for the charts. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Are the CBO guys pundits? I'm pretty sure they work with raw data.

---

Pundits? Maybe not, but CBO numbers have a history of being way off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The Revenue Outlook
Chapter 4, page 93:

Business tax incentives enacted in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 further reduced revenues.

---

That is based on congress' continues believe that tax rates cause a static result rather than having feedbacks. Their statement has no basis in reality.

Quote:

---

Those incentives allowed firms to expense (immediately deduct from their taxable income) a portion of any investment made in equipment between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2004. Prior to 2005, when they expired, those partial expensing provisions both reduced taxable corporate profits and tax payments and increased corporate refunds, thereby reducing net corporate tax receipts.

---

So they only look at the side that reduces static revenues, while ignoring the increased economy from more money circulating in a dynamic fashion. Cherry picking the facts.

Quote:

---

By 2003, corporate receipts as a share of GDP fell to 1.2 percent, their lowest share since 1983. Especially strong profit growth since 2003, combined with expiration of the tax incentives, caused corporate receipts to rise to 2.7 percent of GDP by 2006, their highest share since 1978.

---

The 2003 tax cuts rectified this! 2006 highest share since 1978, after the larger cuts were in place! Interesting how lower taxes mean higher profit growth, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

And BTW, those graphs you posted do nothing other than support my point. Tax revenues did decrease after the tax cuts. Thanks for the charts. :tu

---

There were more than one set of cuts. I should have specified I was referring to the 2003 cuts. The prior cuts were tiny compared to that, and had almost no effect. Top marginal rates on personal income:

2000 39.6%
2001 39.1%
2002 38.6%
2003 35.0%

Middle Class top marginals:

2000 28% and 31%
2001 27.5% and 30.5%
2002 27% and 30%
2003 25% and 28%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That is based on congress' continues believe that tax rates cause a static result rather than having feedbacks. Their statement has no basis in reality.
So they only look at the side that reduces static revenues, while ignoring the increased economy from more money circulating in a dynamic fashion. Cherry picking the facts

---

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing wether we were above or below the acceptable taxing threshold. Tax revenue decrease = below the acceptable taxing threshold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The 2003 tax cuts rectified this! 2006 highest share since 1978, after the larger cuts were in place! Interesting how lower taxes mean higher profit growth, huh?

---

I'm sorry, you must have missed this part: combined with expiration of the tax incentives

Certain tax cuts expire = more taxes collected = larger tax revenue = still below the acceptable taxing threshold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There were more than one set of cuts. I should have specified I was referring to the 2003 cuts. The prior cuts were tiny compared to that, and had almost no effect. Top marginal rates on personal income:

2000 39.6%
2001 39.1%
2002 38.6%
2003 35.0%

Middle Class top marginals:

2000 28% and 31%
2001 27.5% and 30.5%
2002 27% and 30%
2003 25% and 28%

---

Do you have the top marginals on corporate income for that period? I mean, if you're not embarrassed to post them. Also, I hope you don't mind if I ask for the source of those numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing wether we were above or below the acceptable taxing threshold. Tax revenue decrease = below the acceptable taxing threshold.

---

I don't share that opinion. I say we are still above the optimum value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm sorry, you must have missed this part: combined with expiration of the tax incentives

---

Don't you think the larger tax reduction also helped?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Certain tax cuts expire = more taxes collected = larger tax revenue = still below the acceptable taxing threshold.

---

Assuming we are on that side of the curve. Again, all evidence shows otherwise. We clearly need farther tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Do you have the top marginals on corporate income for that period? I mean, if you're not embarrassed to post them. Also, I hope you don't mind if I ask for the source of those numbers?

---

First of all, corporate tax revenue is much smaller than the revenues from individual tax returns. I was taking the position of the largest chunk of money. Individual tax returns. I think corporate tax rates stayed 35% all along, but I didn't look. I personally think it's way too high, and our economy would be far better off if we didn't tax businesses so high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't share that opinion. I say we are still above the optimum value.

---

I wish it was merely an opinion. But if we go by the precepts explained by the Laffer curve, we're below the optimum value. You can't defend the Laffer curve precepts when they fit your criteria, and dismiss them when they do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Don't you think the larger tax reduction also helped?

---

Sure they did. I also think the expiring tax cuts helped too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Assuming we are on that side of the curve.

---

We don't have to assume absolutely anything. Tax cuts = decrease in tax revenue = left side of the peak on the curve. Zero assumptions made. Merely reading the numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, all evidence shows otherwise. We clearly need farther tax cuts.

---

What evidence? Both what you provided and what I provided show that the tax revenue decreased after the cuts.

And now we can dispose of one of the original myths that brought up this discussion: The government doesn't have any more money in their coffers than what it had for the last 40 years as a ratio of the GDP. Meaning, the tax cuts simply did not increase any revenue whatsoever, only decreased it from the median temporarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

First of all, corporate tax revenue is much smaller than the revenues from individual tax returns. I was taking the position of the largest chunk of money. Individual tax returns. I think corporate tax rates stayed 35% all along, but I didn't look. I personally think it's way too high, and our economy would be far better off if we didn't tax businesses so high.

---

It's interesting you mention this, because that ascending curve you see from 2004, it's almost exclusively due to corporate tax revenue.

In 2006, according to the CBO, individual income tax revenue was 1,043.9 billion, an increase of 5 percent since 2001. Corporate tax revenue was 353.9 billion in 2006, a 134 percent rise from 2001. That’s a dramatic increase.

The CBO analyzed data to uncover the causes of revenue growth since 2003 in response to a request from Sen. Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate budget committee. In a letter to Conrad, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag says that overall receipts increased by 1.9 percentage points as a share of GDP and that the increase “disproportionately” comes from a rise in corporate income tax revenues.

Orszag attributes two-thirds of the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits. The rest he pins to tax policy. For instance, when provisions allowing partial expensing of investment in equipment expired, tax revenue increased. In other words, revenue declined when the provisions were enacted and bumped up again when they expired.

(From the factcheck.org article I linked earlier).

So, are corporate taxes 'marginal' or not? And you still didn't post the numbers. Are you cherry picking just like you claim the CBO is doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I wish it was merely an opinion. But if we go by the precepts explained by the Laffer curve, we're below the optimum value. You can't defend the Laffer curve precepts when they fit your criteria, and dismiss them when they do not.

---

Are you saying we didn't have growth after 2003?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Sure they did. I also think the expiring tax cuts helped too.

---

If they helped, why are you saying we are on the low side for taxation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

We don't have to assume absolutely anything. Tax cuts = decrease in tax revenue = left side of the peak on the curve. Zero assumptions made. Merely reading the numbers.

---

Bullshit. Revenues increased!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What evidence? Both what you provided and what I provided show that the tax revenue decreased after the cuts.

---

They increased after the 2003 tax cuts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's interesting you mention this, because that ascending curve you see from 2004, it's almost exclusively due to corporate tax revenue.

---

Bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

In 2006, according to the CBO, individual income tax revenue was 1,043.9 billion, an increase of 5 percent since 2001. Corporate tax revenue was 353.9 billion in 2006, a 134 percent rise from 2001. That’s a dramatic increase.

---

OK, there was a larger increase at the corporate tax level, percentage wise. Individual returns are still about 3 times higher in numbers rather than percent.

Remember how many businesses were not making a profit to pay taxes on before the tax cuts? People weren't buying enough goods. With more spendable income, people bought more. Businesses made a profit again that they could be taxed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The CBO analyzed data to uncover the causes of revenue growth since 2003 in response to a request from Sen. Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate budget committee. In a letter to Conrad, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag says that overall receipts increased by 1.9 percentage points as a share of GDP and that the increase “disproportionately” comes from a rise in corporate income tax revenues.

---

Fact without seeing the root cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Orszag attributes two-thirds of the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits.

---

Yep, more profits equal more taxable income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The rest he pins to tax policy. For instance, when provisions allowing partial expensing of investment in equipment expired, tax revenue increased. In other words, revenue declined when the provisions were enacted and bumped up again when they expired.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

(From the factcheck.org article I linked earlier).

So, are corporate taxes 'marginal' or not? And you still didn't post the numbers. Are you cherry picking just like you claim the CBO is doing?

---

I haven't checked. I think corporate taxes have always been 35%. If it's important to you, you look it up. That is not my argument. It's yours. Mine is with individual rates. As people have more money to spend, the economy grows. As the economy grows, more people work and businesses make more money to be taxed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you saying we didn't have growth after 2003?
If they helped, why are you saying we are on the low side for taxation?
Bullshit. Revenues increased!
They increased after the 2003 tax cuts!
Bullshit.
OK, there was a larger increase at the corporate tax level, percentage wise. Individual returns are still about 3 times higher in numbers rather than percent.

Remember how many businesses were not making a profit to pay taxes on before the tax cuts? People weren't buying enough goods. With more spendable income, people bought more. Businesses made a profit again that they could be taxed on.Fact without seeing the root cause.
Yep, more profits equal more taxable income.

I haven't checked. I think corporate taxes have always been 35%. If it's important to you, you look it up. That is not my argument. It's yours. Mine is with individual rates. As people have more money to spend, the economy grows. As the economy grows, more people work and businesses make more money to be taxed on.

---

I have to assume you either do not understand or you simply don't want to.
For a person that prides himself of being an engineer and likes to lambast people for not studying a topic before spouting a comment, I'm more inclined to think you're just playing dumb.
So at this point, before I keep on wasting any more time, I would like you to refute that factcheck.org article that flies right in the face of your contention that tax cuts generate tax revenue. And sorry, but I won't take simply "They're wrong, I'm right". That's what you've been doing so far without backing up any single one of your assertions. My intention here is that in order to even attempt to refute the information on that article, you have to read it first. And it does explain better than I ever could what I've been trying to tell you so far, and that has completely eluded you.

I'm sorry that you have to have Fact Check tell you what to believe. They are sometimes wrong. Please notice they use other peoples facts without a proper analysis.

Quote:

---

Please notice they use other peoples facts without a proper analysis.

---

Turn it around, WC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Turn it around, WC.

---

At least I use my mind to determine what is real. I don't blindly use other people's facts. No comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

At least I use my mind to determine what is real. I don't blindly use other people's facts. No comparison.

---

:lmao There is truly no comparison.

The logical fallacy is staggering. If it's a fact then it's not an opinion. What does it matter who the source is?
Are you arguing that the factcheck report is opinion, and not fact?
Because if that's what you mean, I'm waiting for your rebuttal with hard, cold facts (Yes! You can use any source you want!), not merely your personal opinion, which is all we got right now...

So Bush's spending outpaced any growth in tax collections. Of course, the assumption is that the increase in tax collections is the result primarily of the tax cuts is a tenuous one, when one considers the role which the asset bubble promulgated by the Fed and Fannie/Freddie had to play in economic growth from 2002-2008.

If Obamacare is not passed, I will blame reason and sanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If Obamacare is not passed, I will blame reason and sanity.

---

I agree here. Only the mentally ill want his health care plan.

The health bill keeps getting water downed as it should.
Looks like the senate will not even have a public option. The lobbyists did their job. I was a little disappointed in them at first, but not anymore.:wakeup
We'll see what transpires...