|
|
On August 17 2012 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:Romney: I've paid at least 13 percent tax rate in each of past 10 yearsShow nested quote +
GREER, S.C. — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that he has paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent in each of the last 10 years, bowing to months of political pressure to disclose more information about his vast personal fortune.
“I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year,” he told reporters here Thursday.
I also own 7 Bentleys but read TeamLiquid in my off time.
Even if he did pay 13% (no proof) it depends on what amount of money it was on, because his "income" is artificially low since his money comes from various fields...
|
It's low because it's mostly in two places.
His IRA, and the trust fund for his boys.
He is a 65 year old living off his IRA. (a really big one)
|
On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years.
Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that.
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients.
So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff.
None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was.
|
On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article.
I'd rather read the CBO report.
|
On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that. Show nested quote +
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. Show nested quote +So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was.
When Republicans propose to cut Medicare, Social Security, research, education, and absolutely everything that is not Defense, it's called being fiscally responsible -- saving our children from drowning in debt.
When Democrats do it, cutting spending that is no longer necessary because of Obamacare coverage, it's called gutting the safety net and leaving old and sick people out in the cold to die.
|
On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report.
Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
|
On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts.
|
Netherlands21351 Posts
On August 17 2012 16:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral? It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts.
The decrease in tax rates will increase tax income (yes its pixy magic) combined with an 8% economic growth (yep, more magic) will make the plan revenue neutral.
|
On August 17 2012 16:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral? It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf
Yes, on page 13, it says the plan needs revenue that's 19% of GDP.
The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.
The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path.
It's a sham. The voodoo magic of tax cuts at work.
|
On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that. Show nested quote +
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. Show nested quote +So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was.
Pretty much identical thoughts here.
PPACA says soak the DOCTORS & HOSPITALS for the treatment they provide.
From the Washington Post
The Medicare Advantage cut gets the most attention, but it only accounts for about a third of the Affordable Care Act’s spending reduction. Another big chunk comes from the hospitals. The health law changed how Medicare calculates what they get reimbursed for various services, slightly lowering their rates over time. Hospitals agreed to these cuts because they knew, at the same time, they would likely see an influx of paying patients with the Affordable Care Act’s insurance expansion. Article also includes a pie chart for the medicare cuts
The political reasoning behind the PPACA was to rob Medicare to bring the total to under a trillion dollars (actual 1.2 trillion estimated currently). This helped its passage. The Trustees report of Social Security and Medicare invites plans to reform the program and its funding. Demonization of the Ryan plan in current dialogue is demagoguery. The program is going to die, and any attempts to reform it are compared to Republicans killing granny.
|
On August 17 2012 16:51 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral? It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdfYes, on page 13, it says the plan needs revenue that's 19% of GDP. Show nested quote +The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.
The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path. It's a sham. The voodoo magic of tax cuts at work.
Actually, the way to make it work would be to further increase the wealth disparity of the U.S. If you give a larger share of the income to those paying a higher rate of their income, the tax revenue could shift up to that level.
|
On August 17 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 16:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral? It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdfYes, on page 13, it says the plan needs revenue that's 19% of GDP. The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.
The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path. It's a sham. The voodoo magic of tax cuts at work. Actually, the way to make it work would be to further increase the wealth disparity of the U.S. If you give a larger share of the income to those paying a higher rate of their income, the tax revenue could shift up to that level.
According to Liberals, the income should be shifted to rich peoples' secretaries, as they are clearly paying the highest rates ...
|
On August 17 2012 16:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that.
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was. When Republicans propose to cut Medicare, Social Security, research, education, and absolutely everything that is not Defense, it's called being fiscally responsible -- saving our children from drowning in debt. When Democrats do it, cutting spending that is no longer necessary because of Obamacare coverage, it's called gutting the safety net and leaving old and sick people out in the cold to die.
Ryan's plan and Obamacare make the same cuts to Medicare. The difference is that Ryan uses those cuts to make Medicare more fiscally sustainable over the long term, whereas Obamacare uses the money from the cuts to fund a new entitlement program. Of course, Ryan's plan is a boogeyman that is effectively dead. Obamacare was passed. Obama's gonna have some 'splainin' to do.
Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
This one, which scores the repeal of Obamacare (which is another way of scoring Obamacare): http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
|
On August 17 2012 23:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:On August 17 2012 16:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 16:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 17 2012 16:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 11:32 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I think that by "disturbingly often" you mean "each time they contradict my opinion". On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. Read the article. I'd rather read the CBO report. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral? It does say how it will be revenue neutral, by increasing tax revenue to 19% of GDP. No idea how the hell that's going to happen with such sharp tax cuts. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdfYes, on page 13, it says the plan needs revenue that's 19% of GDP. The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.
The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path. It's a sham. The voodoo magic of tax cuts at work. Actually, the way to make it work would be to further increase the wealth disparity of the U.S. If you give a larger share of the income to those paying a higher rate of their income, the tax revenue could shift up to that level. According to Liberals, the income should be shifted to rich peoples' secretaries, as they are clearly paying the highest rates ...
You say that as a joke, but middle class people end up paying a higher % in taxes than the rich or corporations who make far mroe money. They just dont have enough wealth to take advantage of all the pretty loopholes that are left to spare the rich people the hardship of paying taxes. A many times over millionaire like Romney is proud to say he pays 13%? Thats pathetic. How do you afford paying for anything when youre collecting so little? Oh wait, you dont.
|
Romney put his Bain partnership shares into his IRA.
So the capital gains rate he pays on them when he takes them out is 15%.
It's not that he's rich he gets special treatment. Everyone can get an IRA. Everyone pays 15% long term cap gains in 2012.
It's that he's older than 59 1/2 years old. And his partnership shares increased in value (a lot).
There's no crazy financial / tax engineering going on that non-millionaires have access to.
I'll edit this a bit. If there are any tax loop holes you or anyone has probelms with... it would have to do with a partnership agreement and a share structure that gives the preferred partners the ability to put near $0 value shares into an IRA...with the knowledge that they in all likely hood will be worth much more in the future.
Very simplified example...If the IRA limit per year is $30,000 or whatver....we'll I just sock away 3 million 1-cent shares of private equity partnership perferred stock. (However they design the deal) But you know that once the deal closes the shares would be worth $10 each. Or $30 million.
|
On August 17 2012 23:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that.
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was. When Republicans propose to cut Medicare, Social Security, research, education, and absolutely everything that is not Defense, it's called being fiscally responsible -- saving our children from drowning in debt. When Democrats do it, cutting spending that is no longer necessary because of Obamacare coverage, it's called gutting the safety net and leaving old and sick people out in the cold to die. Ryan's plan and Obamacare make the same cuts to Medicare. The difference is that Ryan uses those cuts to make Medicare more fiscally sustainable over the long term, whereas Obamacare uses the money from the cuts to fund a new entitlement program. Of course, Ryan's plan is a boogeyman that is effectively dead. Obamacare was passed. Obama's gonna have some 'splainin' to do. Show nested quote +Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
This one, which scores the repeal of Obamacare (which is another way of scoring Obamacare): http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
So just to make sure, you want me to read the CBO report that says that repealing the PPACA would add over 100 billion dollars to the federal deficit over the 2013-2022 period?
|
On August 17 2012 23:55 RCMDVA wrote:
Romney put his Bain partnership shares into his IRA.
So the capital gains rate he pays on them when he takes them out is 15%.
It's not that he's rich he gets special treatment. Everyone can get an IRA. Everyone pays 15% long term cap gains in 2012.
It's that he's older than 59 1/2 years old. And his partnership shares increased in value (a lot).
There's no crazy financial / tax engineering going on that non-millionaires have access to.
Except for the fact that non-millionaires generally don't have their primary source of income come from capital gains, it generally comes from working, which is taxed at a much higher rate.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 23:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 16:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that.
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was. When Republicans propose to cut Medicare, Social Security, research, education, and absolutely everything that is not Defense, it's called being fiscally responsible -- saving our children from drowning in debt. When Democrats do it, cutting spending that is no longer necessary because of Obamacare coverage, it's called gutting the safety net and leaving old and sick people out in the cold to die. Ryan's plan and Obamacare make the same cuts to Medicare. The difference is that Ryan uses those cuts to make Medicare more fiscally sustainable over the long term, whereas Obamacare uses the money from the cuts to fund a new entitlement program. Of course, Ryan's plan is a boogeyman that is effectively dead. Obamacare was passed. Obama's gonna have some 'splainin' to do. Show nested quote +Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
This one, which scores the repeal of Obamacare (which is another way of scoring Obamacare): http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
How is Obamacare unsustainable? It reduces the deficit over the long term. The CBO report you links says repealing it would increase the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years. It does not support your argument, it supports mine.
I don't want Ryan's budget to be dead, I'd prefer it to be continually mocked and ridiculed for making insanely unrealistic assumptions about growth and revenue and giving no specifics on how it would be achieved.
|
On August 18 2012 00:02 thatonekid.907 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 16:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 12:11 SerpentFlame wrote:On August 17 2012 11:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2012 10:57 kwizach wrote:On August 17 2012 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are any of you liberals/Obama supporters worried about the upcoming debates on Medicare? Quite the opposite (notably because of the two fact-checks listed here - the truth and good policies are on Obama's side). Politifact's articles on the Medicare cuts are precisely the kind of crap that makes them look like a hack outfit disturbingly often. I don't know in what world they can classify what Obamacare does to Medicare as not being a cut. It takes money out of the system. Period. Do the cuts directly reduce services? No. However, the cuts do reduce reimbursements to providers, which will reduce the availability of providers that are willing to take Medicare (and this has already been a problem for a number of years). Regardless, here's the bottom-line problem for Obama. Though Paul Ryan advocated a budget with significant cuts to Medicare that are much like Obama's, Romney has not and will not. In stark contrast, not only Obama proposed significant cuts to Medicare, he has actually enacted them. If I were Romney, I'd remake the DNC ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off the cliff and insert Obama instead. Romney declared Paul Ryan's budget "marvelous" in debates. He's advocated time and time again for entitlement reform. That he would not try to alter Medicare, as you seem to say, to is not the platform he's been running on for 4 years. Are you really going to say that someone who has already cut Medicare spending is less of a "danger" to Medicare than someone who previously has advocated Medicare reform but currently proposes no cuts to Medicare and would refund the cuts made from Obamacare? I don't think anyone is going to buy that.
The Affordable Care Act cuts funds from Medicare Advantage, a pilot program designed to cut costs. Ultimately, Medicare Advantage ended up costing 12 percent more without providing higher quality care. The program involves a government subsidy of private insurers to try and encourage competition and drive down costs. It was unnecessary government involvement in the private industry that did not cut costs compared to traditional Medicare. Scaling back funds for this program, (especially for those private insurers that don't meet basic health benchmarks, where much of the savings come from) and strengthening the rest is an obvious, and long overdue solution. In fact, I believe most Republicans call this cracking down on waste.
You realize that the cuts go far beyond just the Medicare Advantage program, right? Medicare Advantage only runs in the neighborhood of $10-15 billion per year, and would only total $156 billion over the next 10 years per the CBO's June report. The vast majority of the cuts to Medicare lower Medicare's reimbursement rates to providers. This will be crippling to doctors and hospitals, who are already beginning to limit or outright refuse service to Medicare patients. So okay, the ACA reduces some money given to private insurers, which by itself would reduce some coverage provided to seniors. Other parts of the legislation, however, strengthen Medicare by providing seniors free annual wellness visits, free preventative services, and a 50 percent discount for drugs in the Medicare "donut hole"; that is, drugs that were not covered at all under the pre-Obamacare law in the (unpaid for Bush era) Medicare Part D. So "Obamacare" removes some of the outlays to a monetarily expensive and inefficient program (Medicare Advantage) and provides it to services that actually go directly to seniors. Hardly rolling granny off a cliff. None of these "cookies" will make up for what has been taken out of Medicare. Preventative services don't really mean shit when you're already old. You need real care and coverage, which is no longer funded as it was. When Republicans propose to cut Medicare, Social Security, research, education, and absolutely everything that is not Defense, it's called being fiscally responsible -- saving our children from drowning in debt. When Democrats do it, cutting spending that is no longer necessary because of Obamacare coverage, it's called gutting the safety net and leaving old and sick people out in the cold to die. Ryan's plan and Obamacare make the same cuts to Medicare. The difference is that Ryan uses those cuts to make Medicare more fiscally sustainable over the long term, whereas Obamacare uses the money from the cuts to fund a new entitlement program. Of course, Ryan's plan is a boogeyman that is effectively dead. Obamacare was passed. Obama's gonna have some 'splainin' to do. Which CBO report? The CBO report which says Obamacare will reduce the deficit? The one which says stimulus saved 3 million jobs? Or the one which says that Ryan's plan leaves completely unspecified how he would make it revenue neutral?
This one, which scores the repeal of Obamacare (which is another way of scoring Obamacare): http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf So just to make sure, you want me to read the CBO report that says that repealing the PPACA would add over 100 billion dollars to the federal deficit over the 2013-2022 period?
Yep. That's the one. Keep in mind that the point is not the deficit. The point is the cuts to Medicare.
I don't think democrats have figured out how badly that they've fucked themselves on the Medicare issue. In fact, judging by some of the interviews of democrat leaders that have been floating around (the Wasserman-Schulz interview being the best example), I wonder the extent to which that they're collectively even aware that they passed the very cuts to Medicare to that they demagogued the Ryan plan for proposing. They've basically given Romney the Medicare issue on a silver platter. Romney is campaigning on reversing the cuts (not that I agree with him), and has the butt-simple and true (I don't care what Politifact has to say, they're retarded. The CBO says it all.) pitch to make that Obama robbed Medicare of $700 billion to fund the unpopular Obamacare. Moreover, this eliminates two weaknesses of Romney. First, it takes the Ryan budget's cuts to Medicare off of the table. Second, and more importantly, it gives Romney another shot at hammering Obama for Obamacare. Instead of arguing about the individual mandate, Romney can argue about the Medicare cuts. Just wait for the ads to start rolling out from Romney and the PACs. They're going to do some damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
