On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.
On September 10 2009 10:38 GoShox wrote: Video of the "liar" part:
EXTREMELY pitiful for any Republican (or anyone in politics for that matter) to be that immature. Apparently it was Joe Wilson from South Carolina... with the Republicans already down as they are now, I don't know why they resort to silly antics like this.
Wow... actually hearing that part for the first time just now.
That is seriously so immature. This just shows the kind of tactics and behavior they use when people arent watching.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Like Mr Canadian earlier in the thread, you guys have a cap on the cost of your medications. Try start small, taking baby steps, instead we have to have some convoluted $900 billion dollar package that's gonna just miraculously solve everything in one fell swoop. Its bullshit, the only thing that's certain is the assholes will try to keep their jobs. It doesn't matter what the healthcare system is like if everyone keeps losing jobs.
I appreciate this sentiment, but in the opinion of most economists $900 Bil is a baby step. The health care industry accounts for a full sixth of the US economy, and such a large ship turns slowly.
Both Conservatives and Progressives mostly agree that a key first step is getting everyone into the insurance system, no matter how you propose to do this it will not come cheap.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
Any idiot should realize that a healthcare system, whether public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. And the policy etched out in the current bill is an absolute piece of shit.
Obama's a great speaker, I'll give him that much, but that's all his "reform" has going for it. If you look at the actual bill and actually READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT, then I think it's quite clear that this isn't the system that everyone is hyping it up to be. I just wish the COCKSUCKING MEDIA would get serious about addressing the real criticisms, rather than harping about the fundamental ideological differences between public and private healthcare systems.
Edit: Let me be clear: it's not that this bill can't work. It's that it can't work without serious revisions that aren't going to happen in the current political climate.
On September 10 2009 12:29 Mortality wrote: All of this is idiotic.
Any idiot should realize that a healthcare system, whether public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. And the policy etched out in the current bill is an absolute piece of shit.
Obama's a great speaker, I'll give him that much, but that's all his "reform" has going for it. If you look at the actual bill and actually READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT, then I think it's quite clear that this isn't the system that everyone is hyping it up to be. I just wish the COCKSUCKING MEDIA would get serious about addressing the real criticisms, rather than harping about the fundamental ideological differences between public and private healthcare systems.
There is no document. I've already said in this thread that we can't READ THE FUCKING BILL if there is no bill. All we have are drafts. Please link us to provisions in specific drafts that are under discussion that you disagree with instead of ranting about the media.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.
On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote: I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill.
And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.
The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital?
EXTREMELY pitiful for any Republican (or anyone in politics for that matter) to be that immature. Apparently it was Joe Wilson from South Carolina... with the Republicans already down as they are now, I don't know why they resort to silly antics like this.
Wow... actually hearing that part for the first time just now.
That is seriously so immature. This just shows the kind of tactics and behavior they use when people arent watching.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.
agree with this guy. the top income brackets in the US seriously need heavier taxes. gl getting that shit passed though.. lol america
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.
Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though.
On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote: I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill.
And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.
The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital?
What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs.
In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.
Yeah, when obama wanted to raise the tax rate on the Americans making over $250,000 from 35% to 38%, the conservative pundits and bloggers got the people all up in arms with the teabag nonsense. Most of them probably made around $40,000~$50,000 and were protesting against something just because Glenn Beck told them to, not because they knew what was going on.
On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote: I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill.
And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.
The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital?
What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs.
In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.
Since when were gas prices high? Gas and food in America are way cheaper than they ought to be and are much cheaper than they are in Asia and Europe. Even at the peak, like $4 a gallon, we paid less than half the price that many other people pay.
On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote: Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.
In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.
Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though.
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.
Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though.
Controlled inflation is not the devil.
But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately.
On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote: Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.
In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.
Don't forget about a staggeringly large military with lots of toys...
On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote: Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.
There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.
The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.
If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.
There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.
Yeah, when obama wanted to raise the tax rate on the Americans making over $250,000 from 35% to 38%, the conservative pundits and bloggers got the people all up in arms with the teabag nonsense. Most of them probably made around $40,000~$50,000 and were protesting against something just because Glenn Beck told them to, not because they knew what was going on.
On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote: I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill.
And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.
The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital?
What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs.
In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.
Since when were gas prices high? Gas and food in America are way cheaper than they ought to be and are much cheaper than they are in Asia and Europe. Even at the peak, like $4 a gallon, we paid less than half the price that many other people pay.
I mean relatively. My point still stands. Relatively higher gas prices make people freak out about going green. Relatively lower gas prices make people take a cross country trip.
On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote: Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.
I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.
In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.
I wouldn't say he is doing what he needs. That was a ridiculously polarized speech where he called the conservatives liars and he was just fixing everything they did wrong. I STILL have no idea how this is going to be paid for legitimately. All I hear is OH MEDICARE WILL COVER IT! If it were that easy to get fraud and abuse out of medicare it would already be done.
My point wasn't a literal tax only for the middle class. Rather a tax the middle class will have to pay in some form or another as a result of this bill passing(if it does). What I'm saying is that people are strapped for cash as is, this isn't the time for idealistic views when the real unemployment rate is well over 15%. For those who aren't in the no, when your benefits drop off after 6 months, unless you get a federal extension you're no longer part of the statistic, if you gave up or otherwise you're no longer part of the statistic.
Anyhow, what I'm getting at is the PROPOSALS--since they're not technically bills to be prim and proper--aren't going to affect the disease nor are they going to abandon big business(pharma, american medical association, etc.). It was like the whole net neutrality thing, the internet is great how it is now, they wanted to solidify something that was advantageous for the companies and that through law gave them the upper hand.
Also I'm still confused at how they plan on making this deficit neutral if on the news itself it said it would cost 900 billion. Oh and yeah for the people who wanna say economists think that's a small number by today's standards? Apparently economists aren't as intelligent as you think they are considering they're the same people who advise people like the president and fuck over the country with bailouts. So yeah, economists can go to hell.
EPT
