President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:25 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:The taxes you're talking about above is the panalty for those who don't have healthcare , so it still doesn't affect YOU , who will have your healthcare . ;)


No it's not the panalty, it's the tax, see CJ John Roberts. :wink:


It is tax. But they'll tax those who don't purchase healthcare. Still nothing extra out if your pocket.
Why are you against people buying healthcare instead of using your tax money to get it for free. At least now they get taxed for it , not you ! ;)
Kudos to you for pointing out my typo , that was the best part of your argument ;)
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:31 am

The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Behshad wrote:Hey FakeFinder , let me ask you this. You have a great job , you have great healthcare. So why do you care whether obamacare exists or not. It won't affect You one bit. Those people who will be forced to have insurance are the people that currently get treatment (healthcare) provided to them by YOUR tax money. Wouldn't you rather them start paying for their insurance so YOU don't have to contribute anymore , Mr Oreos ;) :)


Well I care because right now what I pay in premiums that comes directly out of my pay through my employer's payroll depends on what plan I have elected. However, with Obamacare, I can guarantee that what I pay will drastically increase compared to what I'm paying now and I will get much less in return. What I pay right now in premiums is for me. However, if Obamacare is enforced, most of what I pay for will go to sponges.

That's why I care. My state and federal income taxes are already going to a bunch of fucking sponges and I don't like that as it is. The democrats are just concocting and crafting up another handout to the sponges called Obamacare.



Of course you only assume that your premium will go up ( a lot more than they normally do every year )
Those who sponge will now actually have to start paying in , so wouldn't you rather have them pay in too instead of just us as we have for a long time ?!
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:53 am

Fact Finder wrote:Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... taxes.html



Hey, everyone here should try this little calculator from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... s-for-you/


Well that was depressing. I entered the info as if my employer dropped my coverage, which he has said he will do. At the bare minimum, my rates will go up $6,000!!!!! Wow. And that's above and beyond what I am already contributing to my plan, which is the full cost for my family and a discounted cost for me. I have a pre-existing condition, so it says my rates will probably be even more expensive. Damn Fact Finder - you just ruined my whole day! Now I am in panic mode.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:59 am

Memorex wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... taxes.html



Hey, everyone here should try this little calculator from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... s-for-you/


Well that was depressing. I entered the info as if my employer dropped my coverage, which he has said he will do. At the bare minimum, my rates will go up $6,000!!!!! Wow. And that's above and beyond what I am already contributing to my plan, which is the full cost for my family and a discounted cost for me. I have a pre-existing condition, so it says my rates will probably be even more expensive. Damn Fact Finder - you just ruined my whole day! Now I am in panic mode.



:lol:
He does ruin people's day one way or another. ;)
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:11 am

What's the story on tax/pre-tax? Anyone know? Currently under my employer plan, my contribution is pre-tax, meaning I do not get taxed on that income. If he drops me and I have to go by my own from Obamedical, Inc., will I have to pay for that out of my take home pay, which is then taxed?

Everyone - no matter how you look at it I am clearly about to take a major hit tax wise between the Bush cuts expiring and this health care stuff. I'm really just a guy working hard to earn a living and take care of my family. It's really scary for me as I grow older.

But for now at least I have a job, which is better than a lot of folks out there right now.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:13 am

Memorex wrote:What's the story on tax/pre-tax? Anyone know? Currently under my employer plan, my contribution is pre-tax, meaning I do not get taxed on that income. If he drops me and I have to go by my own from Obamedical, Inc., will I have to pay for that out of my take home pay, which is then taxed?

Everyone - no matter how you look at it I am clearly about to take a major hit tax wise between the Bush cuts expiring and this health care stuff. I'm really just a guy working hard to earn a living and take care of my family. It's really scary for me as I grow older.

But for now at least I have a job, which is better than a lot of folks out there right now.



Still the sand : pre-tax.
Don't panic. Wait till you see the real facts ! ;)
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:15 am

Now that they've passed it and the Supreme Court has upheld it, we can see what's in it. :)

This was passed by people that have always wanted more of what I have. I have no doubt this is going to hurt me.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby AR » Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:27 am

Memorex wrote:Now that they've passed it and the Supreme Court has upheld it, we can see what's in it. :)

This was passed by people that have always wanted more of what I have. I have no doubt this is going to hurt me.


2700 pages long and almost no one has read it or know what this is really going to do. Not even our elected officials. :roll:
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Postby The Sushi Hunter » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:55 am

Behshad wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Behshad wrote:Hey FakeFinder , let me ask you this. You have a great job , you have great healthcare. So why do you care whether obamacare exists or not. It won't affect You one bit. Those people who will be forced to have insurance are the people that currently get treatment (healthcare) provided to them by YOUR tax money. Wouldn't you rather them start paying for their insurance so YOU don't have to contribute anymore , Mr Oreos ;) :)


Well I care because right now what I pay in premiums that comes directly out of my pay through my employer's payroll depends on what plan I have elected. However, with Obamacare, I can guarantee that what I pay will drastically increase compared to what I'm paying now and I will get much less in return. What I pay right now in premiums is for me. However, if Obamacare is enforced, most of what I pay for will go to sponges.

That's why I care. My state and federal income taxes are already going to a bunch of fucking sponges and I don't like that as it is. The democrats are just concocting and crafting up another handout to the sponges called Obamacare.



Of course you only assume that your premium will go up ( a lot more than they normally do every year )
Those who sponge will now actually have to start paying in , so wouldn't you rather have them pay in too instead of just us as we have for a long time ?!


Are you even aware that many companies have already said that if this Obamacare passes, they are going to discontinue their healthcare programs offered to employees, since they won't really need to do that anymore, plus they will save a fortune in cost discontinuing it.

So if Obamacare passes, having healthcare through employers will go away. Again, the Government will start raking in the money from the hard working and then reallocate it to who they want to give it to, which will be the sponges. The costs will skyrocket and the Government will continue to increase what they take from the hard working individules. Like state and federal taxes already do.
User avatar
The Sushi Hunter
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Hidden Valley, Japan

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:33 am

They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby The Sushi Hunter » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:50 am

Behshad wrote:They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.


Now I’m starting to wonder if you even know what you’re talking about, because if Obamacare goes into effect, why would anyone need to pay into health care through their employer if they are required to pay the government for it. Why would employers be required to provide health benefits to their employees if the Government is already charging all employees for it? The only way that would make sense is if the employee pays health care premiums through their employer for their own coverage and then pays the government through the Obamacare program for the sponges. Yeah, that makes more sense now. Is that what your talking about in regards to the above?
User avatar
The Sushi Hunter
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Hidden Valley, Japan

Postby slucero » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:15 am

Behshad wrote:They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.



1. the economy is in the shitter
2. its an employers market (more people competing for jobs than there are jobs)

...faced with the choice of the penalty being cheaper than providing coverage.. employers will simply pay the penalty.. if an employee quits because of it, there's already a line of people who wil take that job....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:32 am

The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Behshad wrote:They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.


Now I’m starting to wonder if you even know what you’re talking about, because if Obamacare goes into effect, why would anyone need to pay into health care through their employer if they are required to pay the government for it. Why would employers be required to provide health benefits to their employees if the Government is already charging all employees for it? The only way that would make sense is if the employee pays health care premiums through their employer for their own coverage and then pays the government through the Obamacare program for the sponges. Yeah, that makes more sense now. Is that what your talking about in regards to the above?





Any employer who doesn't offer insurance to its employee must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The overall cost for an employer to provide insurance to all employees is less than paying the $2000 per employee fine.
Most employers these days mainly provide the insurance ( discounted group premium ) and rarely do you see employers who actually participate to pay a percentage of the employees premium.
Why would an employer choose not to offer healthcare to its employees and instead pay the fine ?
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:44 am

Wow. Beshad. This is completely off base. I'm with the others - I'm starting to wonder where your head is.

First off, the penalty is FAR LESS than the insurance. Employer provided health care has been a mainstay in this country for many years. Just look at the list of companies that have gotten a waiver because they cannot afford Obamacare.

So many employers have already said that they will pay the penalty because it's cheaper. And they will not be able to provide coverage at what it costs them today because the premiums keep going up and up and up.

Sushi Hunter - the option is either get your own health care via your employer or a personal plan OR pay the government, not both. So anyone that has coverage through their employer will not have to pay the additional tax.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:46 am

User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Rick » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:53 am

Memorex wrote:Wow. Beshad. This is completely off base. I'm with the others - I'm starting to wonder where your head is.

First off, the penalty is FAR LESS than the insurance. Employer provided health care has been a mainstay in this country for many years. Just look at the list of companies that have gotten a waiver because they cannot afford Obamacare.

So many employers have already said that they will pay the penalty because it's cheaper. And they will not be able to provide coverage at what it costs them today because the premiums keep going up and up and up.

Sushi Hunter - the option is either get your own health care via your employer or a personal plan OR pay the government, not both. So anyone that has coverage through their employer will not have to pay the additional tax.


I was just reading that 9 percent of employers that now offer healthcare benefits plan to drop it and pay the penalty. 20 percent don't know what they're going to do yet, and 79 percent say they're continuing to provide the benefits.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:59 am

In that PDF I posted, it said this:

[url]A report released by the McKinsey Group showed, overall, 30 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably stop offering health care coverage after 2014[/url]

I think many employers are not really going to decide until next year. I imagine many employers thought the law would go away.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Memorex » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:00 pm

Happy 4th everyone. I'm going to light some fireworks with the kids. Hope I don't start a brush fire. :)
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Behshad » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:01 pm

Memorex wrote:Wow. Beshad. This is completely off base. I'm with the others - I'm starting to wonder where your head is.

First off, the penalty is FAR LESS than the insurance. Employer provided health care has been a mainstay in this country for many years. Just look at the list of companies that have gotten a waiver because they cannot afford Obamacare.

So many employers have already said that they will pay the penalty because it's cheaper. And they will not be able to provide coverage at what it costs them today because the premiums keep going up and up and up.

Sushi Hunter - the option is either get your own health care via your employer or a personal plan OR pay the government, not both. So anyone that has coverage through their employer will not have to pay the additional tax.



Huge difference between OFFERING INSURANCE and PAYING for your employees insurance. My employer OFFERS insurance but the employees pay the premium. It's in my employers best interest to continue offering insurance rather than paying the $2000 per employee fine.
Check around and you'll find that most employers nowadays OFFER insurance and the employee pays for most if not the entire premium. Just like Rick said above , 80% of employers will still offer insurance cause it's cheaper for them to OFFER insurance rather than pay the fine. Now if your employer pays for your insurance then I can see why you're panicking , since he will most likely go with the fine which will be cheaper for him and of course more expensive for you ;)
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Rick » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:07 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Behshad wrote:They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.


Now I’m starting to wonder if you even know what you’re talking about, because if Obamacare goes into effect, why would anyone need to pay into health care through their employer if they are required to pay the government for it. Why would employers be required to provide health benefits to their employees if the Government is already charging all employees for it? The only way that would make sense is if the employee pays health care premiums through their employer for their own coverage and then pays the government through the Obamacare program for the sponges. Yeah, that makes more sense now. Is that what your talking about in regards to the above?





Any employer who doesn't offer insurance to its employee must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The overall cost for an employer to provide insurance to all employees is less than paying the $2000 per employee fine.
Most employers these days mainly provide the insurance ( discounted group premium ) and rarely do you see employers who actually participate to pay a percentage of the employees premium.
Why would an employer choose not to offer healthcare to its employees and instead pay the fine ?



It's sad watching people willing to lose their Freedoms on Independance Day. :oops:


:lol: :lol: :lol:
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Rick » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:31 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Behshad wrote:They're saying it now. But once it's time for action they'll just rather offer it to the employees instead of paying the penalty.


Now I’m starting to wonder if you even know what you’re talking about, because if Obamacare goes into effect, why would anyone need to pay into health care through their employer if they are required to pay the government for it. Why would employers be required to provide health benefits to their employees if the Government is already charging all employees for it? The only way that would make sense is if the employee pays health care premiums through their employer for their own coverage and then pays the government through the Obamacare program for the sponges. Yeah, that makes more sense now. Is that what your talking about in regards to the above?





Any employer who doesn't offer insurance to its employee must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The overall cost for an employer to provide insurance to all employees is less than paying the $2000 per employee fine.
Most employers these days mainly provide the insurance ( discounted group premium ) and rarely do you see employers who actually participate to pay a percentage of the employees premium.
Why would an employer choose not to offer healthcare to its employees and instead pay the fine ?



It's sad watching people willing to lose their Freedoms on Independance Day. :oops:


:lol: :lol: :lol:


What's so funny?


You misspelled Independence. :lol: :lol: :lol: j/k Nothing more than you being quick minded in coming up with that line.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby The Sushi Hunter » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:36 am

I'm very leary of a 200 plus page document backing up a Government ordered health care "tax" on everyone who works. The Government knows just how much tax payer money goes out to pay for the health care cost to people in the US who are not paying into the system but are leaching off of it. Example is from the time a baby is born to the time they turn 18, it's estimated that the cost is over $120,000 for each kid. Yet how many illigals and domesticated sponges are in this country having 5, 8, 10 kids on the American tax payers dime? The Government knows these figures and with this new Obamacare tax law, they are simply constructing this new tax to help cover the cost. Basically Obamacare is simply passing the buck onto the American tax payers as always. Politicians pass the bills and let all the rif-raf in and then we the working have to pay for it. Why doesn't Obama draft up a 200 plus page document that says work or you get nothing?

200 plus page document that probably consists of 20% loopholes and the remaining 80% is just to create confusion from the facts. Fact is, it's just a new way to bring in additional revenue to cover the cost of health care provided to sponges in the US.
User avatar
The Sushi Hunter
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Hidden Valley, Japan

Postby Rick » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:43 am

Any guesses who this will be?


http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-wife-says ... 14110.html

WOLFEBORO, N.H. (AP) — Mitt Romney's wife has disclosed a tantalizing detail about her husband's intensely secret vice presidential search: He's considering choosing a woman.

"We've been looking at that, and I love that option as well," Ann Romney told CBS News in an interview broadcast Thursday. She added: "There's a lot of people that Mitt is considering right now."

She also argued that Obama and his Democrats will "do everything they can to destroy Mitt."

"Early on we heard what their strategy was. It was kill Romney," she said, adding a message to Obama: "Not when I'm next to him you better not."

Romney, for his part, didn't weigh in on that characterization of Obama's strategy during the same interview. He also declined to describe the status of the vice presidential search, saying: "That's something I'm keeping close with my team." And he didn't respond to mounting criticism from within his own party about the state of his campaign.

The rare joint interview to CBS came as the Romneys spent the week relaxing with their family at their lakeside estate in Wolfeboro.

Officially, the campaign says that Romney is doing what he's done for the past decade — enjoying family time during a weeklong holiday in New Hampshire. It's also a break from the campaign trail, and a chance to relax before the pre-convention push. But unofficially, the bit of down time is a chance for the contemplative Romney to consider how the campaign is going and adjust strategy as necessary in a contest that polls show is close.

In recent days, conservative opinion leaders, including media titan Rupert Murdoch, have called for Romney to shake up his top staff. There's also been a growing chorus from within GOP circles in key states calling on Romney to talk about issues beyond his key message — that the economy remains weak under Obama — and provide more details about what he would do as president.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wrote Thursday that Romney's strategy "strikes me as a path to (narrow) defeat." The Wall Street Journal editorial page also criticized the campaign's "insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity."

"Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground," the newspaper wrote, calling for "a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided."

Inside Republican circles, speculation is high about who Romney will choose as his No. 2, with his search well under way and his self-imposed deadline for picking a running mate "before the convention" looming large. It's the biggest decision he will make between now and when he accepts the GOP's presidential nomination in late August.

Talk among GOP insiders has focused on men as likely top prospects, including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. But no less than a half-dozen other names also have popped up, including New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte — who walked in a July Fourth parade with Romney on Wednesday — as well as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

In the interview, Ann Romney also sketched out her own requirements for what she'd like to see in a running mate, saying the person should be "someone that obviously can do the job but will be able to carry through with some of the other responsibilities." She said the person should be someone who will have her husband's back and who he will enjoy being around him and have "the same personality type." She added: "Competent, capable and willing to serve this country. I think there's lots of good people out there that fill that bill right now."

It's been four years since John McCain selected then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a rock-ribbed conservative who was little-known outside of her home state, to be the first female on a Republican presidential ticket as he sought a way to both fire up the GOP's core supporters while narrowing Democrat Barack Obama's advantage with women voters. It wasn't long before questions about Palin's readiness to be president — and criticism of an inadequate vetting process — became a major problem for McCain, with critics using the pick to pummel the nominee on his decision-making.

This year, Romney has let that experience drive his criteria: He's said preparedness to be president is his No. 1 requirement for a vice president. Unlike four years ago, Republican base voters are energized largely by a desire to beat Obama. But polls show that Romney still badly trails Obama among women and putting one on the ticket — or even just raising the possibility of a female running mate — could help carve into that support.

Earlier this week, Romney and his wife huddled Tuesday at the estate for at least 45 minutes with campaign manager Matt Rhoades, senior adviser Beth Myers and top strategist Stuart Stevens on the deck that overlooks the lawn behind his home. Romney's five sons — particularly his eldest son, Tagg — also serve as informal political advisers, and all have been on hand all week, virtually assuring that the campaign and the running mate search were being discussed.

Fueling the running-mate talk: Portman was headlining a fundraiser in Concord, N.H., this weekend, and also wrote an opinion piece published in an Ohio newspaper this week to counter Obama's campaign appearances in the state Thursday and Friday. Pawlenty and Jindal both were in Ohio for the same reason, to campaign for Romney near Obama's events.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Behshad » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:27 am

Image
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby The Sushi Hunter » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:07 am

Its only going to matter on election day.
User avatar
The Sushi Hunter
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Hidden Valley, Japan

Postby Monker » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:24 am

Fact Finder wrote:Ha! I was right again.... :lol: :lol: :lol: See page 36 where it says...


THE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT


http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files ... -Act_1.pdf

"THE 3.8 PERCENT “UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION”

During consideration of the ACA, the JCT estimated that this 3.8 percent surcharge
on investment income would produce $123.4 billion in revenues over the
2012–19 period, as reflected in table 5.88


Did I mention $123 Billion last night? Why yes I did. :wink:

Seems my calculator is working just fine, thank you very much.

Monker, it's what's for brunch.


Facts are facts, and if they are using the same numbers you are, they are wrong too.

I went over the calculation step by step. So sorry you can't even follow that.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby conversationpc » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:54 am

Fact Finder wrote:What in gods name is there left to quibble about Monker? You were right that my e-mail was misleading about ALL home sales, and it was. However, that tax still does exist whether you want it to or not. You just quoted above from the damned JCT, "Joint Committee on Taxation" that in FACT THIS NEW TAX WILL RAISE $123 Billion over 10 years. How can you be right yet all the sources I posted be wrong? I fucked up a couple numbers along the way, and tried to correct everyone, so that the facts got posted right. $123 Billion is the number my friend, look it up. :wink:


Unlike most of the rest of us here, Monker does not admit when he's wrong. Arguing for argument's sake.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:03 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:What in gods name is there left to quibble about Monker? You were right that my e-mail was misleading about ALL home sales, and it was. However, that tax still does exist whether you want it to or not. You just quoted above from the damned JCT, "Joint Committee on Taxation" that in FACT THIS NEW TAX WILL RAISE $123 Billion over 10 years. How can you be right yet all the sources I posted be wrong? I fucked up a couple numbers along the way, and tried to correct everyone, so that the facts got posted right. $123 Billion is the number my friend, look it up. :wink:


Unlike most of the rest of us here, Monker does not admit when he's wrong. Arguing for argument's sake.


For the love of God, guys...I just can't lurk and watch this hackneyed jerk circle anymore.

First of all, I'd like you to cite ONE TIME in the past decade that any of the core group of right-wingnuts here has "admit[ted] he's wrong". Seriously, if you do, I will put on a monkey suit and climb up the side of the Empire State Building. Although you have been proven wrong far more times than you've been vindicated, you still insist on clinging to this ridiculous notion.

It is truly funny to watch you all throw yourselves around like a bunch of squealy pigs. Your own boy turned on you. He fucked up the whole thing for your purely contrarian party and its non-existent platform. But, for old time's sake, please keep it up. Deano is lighting one up with Keith Moon right now, peeing his pants.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Memorex » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:02 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:What in gods name is there left to quibble about Monker? You were right that my e-mail was misleading about ALL home sales, and it was. However, that tax still does exist whether you want it to or not. You just quoted above from the damned JCT, "Joint Committee on Taxation" that in FACT THIS NEW TAX WILL RAISE $123 Billion over 10 years. How can you be right yet all the sources I posted be wrong? I fucked up a couple numbers along the way, and tried to correct everyone, so that the facts got posted right. $123 Billion is the number my friend, look it up. :wink:


Unlike most of the rest of us here, Monker does not admit when he's wrong. Arguing for argument's sake.


For the love of God, guys...I just can't lurk and watch this hackneyed jerk circle anymore.

First of all, I'd like you to cite ONE TIME in the past decade that any of the core group of right-wingnuts here has "admit[ted] he's wrong". Seriously, if you do, I will put on a monkey suit and climb up the side of the Empire State Building. Although you have been proven wrong far more times than you've been vindicated, you still insist on clinging to this ridiculous notion.

It is truly funny to watch you all throw yourselves around like a bunch of squealy pigs. Your own boy turned on you. He fucked up the whole thing for your purely contrarian party and its non-existent platform. But, for old time's sake, please keep it up. Deano is lighting one up with Keith Moon right now, peeing his pants.


And this year's "Pot calling the kettle black" award goes to....
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Monker » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:43 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:What in gods name is there left to quibble about Monker? You were right that my e-mail was misleading about ALL home sales, and it was. However, that tax still does exist whether you want it to or not. You just quoted above from the damned JCT, "Joint Committee on Taxation" that in FACT THIS NEW TAX WILL RAISE $123 Billion over 10 years. How can you be right yet all the sources I posted be wrong? I fucked up a couple numbers along the way, and tried to correct everyone, so that the facts got posted right. $123 Billion is the number my friend, look it up. :wink:


Unlike most of the rest of us here, Monker does not admit when he's wrong. Arguing for argument's sake.


Admit I'm wrong about what? I had to correct him TWICE on his own calculations, after proving that his original post was a spam Email and lie. All FF has done is prove to me that he has the mathematical ability of a 12yr old, posts bias articles that a five minute check on Snopes proves are wrong, and has no real credibility at all. So, now he quotes articles written by Republicans who once worked for Bush (no bias there, huh?) and I am going to take it as the truth? I think not. It's just more propaganda crap...and anybody who does read this stuff and believes it is either a Republican, or is anti-Obama, and has a bias to WANT to believe it...Or, they are pretty naive and believe anything regardless of source.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron