|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 00:30 TheToast wrote:
I usually don't get emotional about politics, but I'm quite pissed off right now. US Federal Government has no right to tell me to buy health insurance, nor to they have the right to continue crippling the US economy with this bullshit.
I wasn't sure if I was going to vote in November, but you better as hell believe I'm going to now. Hopefully this is the kick in the pants the republican base needed to take this election seriously.
All I can say is thank god the Republicans control the House and can block funding for the enforcement of this rediculous crap.
You don't have to buy health insurance. You can simply pay the penalty.
GL!
|
On June 29 2012 00:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. ![[image loading]](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/CBO10yeargraph-thumb-454x327-18160.jpg) That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And to argue that those effects are negative, you base yourself on... what?
For small businesses struggling to make payroll, which is the vast majority of small businesses in this country, and the driving force of the economy in this country, the increased costs associated with this law make it more difficult to survive. More expensive to hire people results in less people being hired. Can't make it more difficult on employers to hire and then wonder why they aren't hiring as much as we'd like them to. This has a detrimental effect on the economy. This is the nature of the argument that regulation and taxes has a negative effect on the economy. Making it more difficult for employers to hire people hurts the economy.
|
Ahh, this is a good day for the USA, even if not all here recognize it as such. Well, I guess I will leave a nice quotation from good ol Alexis:
"The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."
|
On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate.
And where's your credible source accounting for these economic effects that shows an increase to the deficit?
The CBO takes many effects into account including some of those you suggested that it didn't. For example there are sections on "Effect on Health Insurance Premiums" and "Effect on Labor Markets": http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
|
On June 29 2012 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And where's your credible source on these economic effects that shows an increase to the deficit. The CBO takes many effects into account including some of those you suggested that it didn't. For example there are sections on "Effect on Health Insurance Premiums" and "Effect on Labor Markets": http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
I don't know about anything else, but at least paralleluniverse tries to give sources and data to back up what he's saying.
|
On June 29 2012 00:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:33 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And to argue that those effects are negative, you base yourself on... what? For small businesses struggling to make payroll, which is the vast majority of small businesses in this country, and the driving force of the economy in this country, the increased costs associated with this law make it more difficult to survive. More expensive to hire people results in less people being hired. Can't make it more difficult on employers to hire and then wonder why they aren't hiring as much as we'd like them to. This has a detrimental effect on the economy. This is the nature of the argument that regulation and taxes has a negative effect on the economy. Making it more difficult for employers to hire people hurts the economy.
Effect on Labor Markets
The legislation will affect some individuals’ decisions about whether and how much
to work and employers’ decisions about hiring workers.29 According to CBO’s August
2010 analysis, the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the
economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the
amount of labor that workers choose to supply.30 That net effect reflects changes in
incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the
legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce,
and other provisions will encourage them to work more. Moreover, many people will
be unaffected by those provisions and will face the same incentives regarding work as
they otherwise would have.
Since the legislation will affect individuals’ decisions on both whether to participate in
the workforce and the number of hours they work, its effect on household employment
is difficult to predict. According to CBO’s projections, if the legislation only
affects the number of individuals who participate in the workforce (and not the average
number of hours worked per employed person), it will reduce employment in
2021 by about 800,000 relative to what would otherwise have occurred; however,
because the legislation will probably affect the average number of hours worked as
well, the effect on employment will be somewhat different.
29. For a general discussion about the potential effects of health care legislation on labor markets, see
Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Changes to the Health Insurance System on Labor Markets,
Issue Brief (July 13, 2009).
30. See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (August 2010).
32
CBO
The net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial
expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies that will reduce the cost of
insurance obtained through the insurance exchanges. Those changes in law will effectively
increase individuals’ financial resources, which will encourage some people to
work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market. In addition, the phaseout of
the subsidies as income rises will effectively increase marginal tax rates, which will also
discourage work. But because most workers who are offered insurance through their
job will be ineligible for the subsidies and because most people will have income that
is too high to be eligible for Medicaid, those effects on financial resources and marginal
tax rates will apply to only a small segment of the population.
Other provisions in the legislation are also likely to diminish people’s incentives to
work. Changes to the insurance market, including provisions that prohibit insurers
from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict
how much premiums can vary with an individual’s age or health status will increase
the appeal that health insurance plans offered outside the workplace have for older
workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise
would.
In contrast, another feature of the Medicaid expansion removes an existing disincentive
to work for many low-income individuals. People currently become ineligible for
Medicaid if their income rises above a certain level; for working parents, the median
income threshold for eligibility among states was 64 percent of the federal poverty
level in 2009. The health care legislation will allow parents to work and still qualify
for Medicaid until their income exceeds 138 percent of the poverty level. Moreover,
parents whose income exceeds the new threshold may be able to work and receive the
subsidies for insurance purchased through the exchanges.31
Employers’ decisions to hire workers will also be affected in some cases by the health
care legislation. Employers with 50 or more employees will be required to pay a penalty
if they do not offer insurance or if the insurance they offer does not meet certain
criteria and at least one of their workers receives a subsidy from an exchange. Those
penalties, whose amounts are based on the number of full-time workers in the firm,
will, over time, generally be passed on to workers through reductions in wages or
other forms of compensation. However, firms generally can not reduce workers’ wages
below the minimum wage, which will probably cause some employers to respond by
hiring fewer low-wage workers. Alternatively, because firms are penalized only if their
full-time employees receive subsidies from exchanges, some firms may instead hire
more part-time or seasonal employees.
31. The wider availability of subsidies could also affect the employment decisions of people with disabilities.
Disabled people whose income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be
able to receive subsidized health care without leaving the work force and enrolling in such programs
as Disability Insurance (DI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). As a result, some disabled
workers who would otherwise be out of the work force might stay employed or seek employment;
however, other disabled workers might leave the work force earlier than they otherwise would
because, unlike DI, neither Medicaid nor subsidies offered through the exchanges will require people
to wait before they can receive benefits.
33
CBO
More generally, the health care legislation may shape the labor market or the operations
of other segments of the economy in ways that are difficult to anticipate or
quantify. For example, the legislation could influence labor markets indirectly by
making it easier for some employees to obtain health insurance outside the workplace
and thereby enabling workers to take jobs that better match their skills. Some firms,
however, might invest less in their workers—by reducing training, for example—if the
probability of retaining those workers declines. To the extent that changes in the
health insurance system lead to better health among workers, the nation’s economic
productivity could be enhanced. It is not clear, however, whether such changes would
have a substantial impact on overall economic productivity or output. Moreover,
many of the effects of the legislation may not be felt for several years because it will
take time for workers and employers to recognize and to adapt to the new incentives.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
|
On June 29 2012 00:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:33 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And to argue that those effects are negative, you base yourself on... what? For small businesses struggling to make payroll, which is the vast majority of small businesses in this country, and the driving force of the economy in this country, the increased costs associated with this law make it more difficult to survive. More expensive to hire people results in less people being hired. Can't make it more difficult on employers to hire and then wonder why they aren't hiring as much as we'd like them to. This has a detrimental effect on the economy. This is the nature of the argument that regulation and taxes has a negative effect on the economy. Making it more difficult for employers to hire people hurts the economy.
Here's a thought. Provide healthcare for everyone, and get big business to actually pay their taxes. Use said actually paid taxes to incentivize medium/small business ventures. Boom, problem solved.
|
On June 29 2012 00:29 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:25 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 00:19 sc4k wrote:
Oh man this is so interesting.
So can anyone say who are the normal 'liberal' and the normal 'conservative' judges are and which way they voted? Chief Justice Roberts was the swing and wrote the majority opinion, alongside Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg. The dissent was Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. What is most surprising is that Roberts was the swing instead of Kennedy, who usually plays that role. I think Roberts felt that now was the time show that true constitutionalism and the current spirit of the Republican party are not one and the same. Thank you for this  Random blog my mum read said that Roberts might have voted the way he did because he has epilepsy, and might have been persuaded by the fact that if he wanted to set up his own law practice now he would find it hard to get backing from an insurer due to his pre-existing condition?
I dont know how people come up with shit like that...
|
It mystifies me how Americans seem to misrepresent European social security as "The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money". As it happens, I once had to apply for welfare in Finland. One of the first questions I was asked trying to book an appointment with the board that decides whether you qualify or not was "And what are you going to do about your situation?"
The point of the system isn't to give layabouts a cozy little existence on hard-working people's tax-euros. The point is to help out members of our society that are down on their luck, and if you wonder why we need the government to do that one only needs to look at the sentiment expressed by the questio "The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money?"
|
On June 28 2012 23:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:46 DoubleReed wrote:On June 28 2012 23:41 inzaneone wrote:
Obamacare makes me have to buy insurance or face a penalty which is still extremely bad policy. if i were to buy insurance right now i would be spending money that i can't afford. don't know where the money tree is going to come from people to pay for it. they should have shoved it right back up obama's ass. since he is not my president Again, you seem to be misinformed. You would subsidized for the insurance if you can't afford it. Only if the State you live in goes along with the expanded Medicaid provision. However, the States joining this lawsuit, and New Jersey and potentially others, are not likely to expand their coverage. So, if you want this subsidy, you have to find a state that offers it. Over time, this effect will blow huge holes in the budgets of these States.
This would be really interesting, if lots of people did move. For one it would have huge consequences in the electoral college and House of Representatives after the 2020 Census.
Also it would change how federal dollars are distributed to the states. Currently "red" states tend to receive far more federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid than "blue" states do, which acts like money flowing into the former from the latter. Poverty and medicaid play an important role in this. If such a migration happened, that could even out or even reverse the flow of interstate fiscal transfers. Aside from Texas and Florida (perhaps North Dakota now that they found all that oil), I'm not sure how many "red" states could survive that, economically.
|
On June 29 2012 00:32 RCMDVA wrote:
That $50 billion "deficit reduced" in 2021... out of a 6 trillion budget in 2021 (corrected)...really is some savings.
Less than 1%... you can't call that but anything other than deficit neutral.
(and I havent' checked) but I'd bet that chart dosen't include a permanent "Doc Fix" to medicare.
Doc Fix has to happen. And that is what is going to blow the numbers out of the water.
Deficit =\= Debt. Deficit is the annual increase of the debt. You can't compare the two numbers like that. It doesn't make sense.
|
On June 29 2012 00:33 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:30 TheToast wrote:
I usually don't get emotional about politics, but I'm quite pissed off right now. US Federal Government has no right to tell me to buy health insurance, nor to they have the right to continue crippling the US economy with this bullshit.
I wasn't sure if I was going to vote in November, but you better as hell believe I'm going to now. Hopefully this is the kick in the pants the republican base needed to take this election seriously.
All I can say is thank god the Republicans control the House and can block funding for the enforcement of this rediculous crap. Let's see you say that when you get cancer and have to pay 100s of thousands of dollars because you weren't insured... What an ignorant childish answer to this entire topic, don't get emotional ever again because you start talking like an absolute moron. The US economy was crippled by banking you imbecile, and furthermore (note above but I'll relink) + Show Spoiler + shows how dumb your entire argument against Obama and his attempts are... Get your shit straight, educate yourself, healthcare isn't crippling the economy and the only people against it are the ones who can afford to insure themselves or have mommy doing it for them...
I won't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because I have health insurance. Basic hospitalization coverage isn't that expensive. And even so, it ought to be my damn decision if I don't want to buy health insurance. I'm a grown ass man, I can make desicions about my personal finance for my own damn self. I don't need big brother telling me what to do. It's complete BS.
I wouldn't care that much if the Federal government decided to subsidize healthcare for the poor, or if they want to change how the industry is regulated to reduce costs. That would be fine. Just don't start regulating me.
Also, please don't tell me to educate myself. I have a BA in Political Science from one of the top universities in the country. :/ I understand this stuff just fine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it.
|
On June 29 2012 00:40 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And where's your credible source on these economic effects that shows an increase to the deficit. The CBO takes many effects into account including some of those you suggested that it didn't. For example there are sections on "Effect on Health Insurance Premiums" and "Effect on Labor Markets": http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf I don't know about anything else, but at least paralleluniverse tries to give sources and data to back up what he's saying.
You want specifics ? Consider all the exemptions from this law that have been requested by businesses since this law has been enacted, as it's unaffordable for them.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2010/10/obamacare-waivers.html
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2010/11/obamacare-waivers-list.html
What do you consider more reliable ? Some academic study or actual real life facts ?
|
On June 29 2012 00:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:33 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And to argue that those effects are negative, you base yourself on... what? For small businesses struggling to make payroll, which is the vast majority of small businesses in this country, and the driving force of the economy in this country, the increased costs associated with this law make it more difficult to survive. More expensive to hire people results in less people being hired. Can't make it more difficult on employers to hire and then wonder why they aren't hiring as much as we'd like them to. This has a detrimental effect on the economy. This is the nature of the argument that regulation and taxes has a negative effect on the economy. Making it more difficult for employers to hire people hurts the economy.
So in other words, you have no actual study to back off your claim that it hurts the economy - only your simplistic and biased assessment.
On June 29 2012 00:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:40 jpak wrote:On June 29 2012 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:30 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:
I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.
Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.
God help us all. Overspending is an invalid argument. Obamacare reduces the deficit. That is such a joke. It fails completely in taking into consideration effects on the economy, and as the economy hits the shitter, deficits balloon, which these analyses completely ignore. CBO assessed the effect of the Obamacare on the deficit. It not an estimate on what the deflicit is. It's a estimate how much Obamacare adds and substract from the delficit without Obamacare. Obviously deficits get worse during recessions. Yet you blame the ballooning deficit on Obama, when a large proportion of the deficit increase is simply due to the 2008 GFC? You're even making an argument for fiscal stimulus, increasing the deficit in the short run, to stimulate the economy, which increases tax revenue and decreases the deficits in the long run. CBO assesses the income and expenditures directly related to the law. It does not take into account the effect on the economy of the law, such as restricted expansion or increased constriction, which result in reduced income coming in. Don't misread what I've said as having anything to do with "unrelated" deficit. However, there are economic effect of the law which impact the tax base, which the CBO does not calculate. And where's your credible source on these economic effects that shows an increase to the deficit. The CBO takes many effects into account including some of those you suggested that it didn't. For example there are sections on "Effect on Health Insurance Premiums" and "Effect on Labor Markets": http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf I don't know about anything else, but at least paralleluniverse tries to give sources and data to back up what he's saying. What do you consider more reliable ? Some academic study or actual real life facts ?
You realize that the academic studies we're referencing/asking for here are based on real-life facts, right?
|
On June 29 2012 00:38 Kaitlin wrote:
For small businesses struggling to make payroll, which is the vast majority of small businesses in this country, and the driving force of the economy in this country, the increased costs associated with this law make it more difficult to survive.
how much is the no insurance tax going to cost?
how much is the lowest-level insurance going to cost?
and
how much cost is there to businesses?
|
On June 29 2012 00:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:32 RCMDVA wrote:
That $50 billion "deficit reduced" in 2021... out of a 6 trillion budget in 2021 (corrected)...really is some savings.
Less than 1%... you can't call that but anything other than deficit neutral.
(and I havent' checked) but I'd bet that chart dosen't include a permanent "Doc Fix" to medicare.
Doc Fix has to happen. And that is what is going to blow the numbers out of the water. Deficit =\= Debt. Deficit is the annual increase of the debt.
How does your response have any relevance to what you quoted ? Nothing in his post confused what debt and deficit were.
|
On June 29 2012 00:42 Hertzy wrote:
It mystifies me how Americans seem to misrepresent European social security as "The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money". As it happens, I once had to apply for welfare in Finland. One of the first questions I was asked trying to book an appointment with the board that decides whether you qualify or not was "And what are you going to do about your situation?"
The point of the system isn't to give layabouts a cozy little existence on hard-working people's tax-euros. The point is to help out members of our society that are down on their luck, and if you wonder why we need the government to do that one only needs to look at the sentiment expressed by the questio "The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money?"
The issue is that when collective US conservatism imagines the people who benefit most from the healthcare decision, they picture a huge amorphous blob of greed, laxity, and lasciviousness, not a family struggling to make ends meet. They assume the worst of their fellow humans, and I think it comes down to simply not KNOWING and EMPATHIZING.
|
On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it.
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then.
|
On June 29 2012 00:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:45 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 00:32 RCMDVA wrote:
That $50 billion "deficit reduced" in 2021... out of a 6 trillion budget in 2021 (corrected)...really is some savings.
Less than 1%... you can't call that but anything other than deficit neutral.
(and I havent' checked) but I'd bet that chart dosen't include a permanent "Doc Fix" to medicare.
Doc Fix has to happen. And that is what is going to blow the numbers out of the water. Deficit =\= Debt. Deficit is the annual increase of the debt. How does your response have any relevance to what you quoted ? Nothing in his post confused what debt and deficit were.
My bad, he compared deficit reduction to the whole budget, which makes even less sense. Compare the number to the deficit. Sheesh.
|
On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
