President Barack Obama - Term Two Thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

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: 4525
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am

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....
"Government's role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety"
User avatar
slucero
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4027
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: 13022
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
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

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

User avatar
Memorex
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
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.
They say so many people die because of alcohol... Perhaps they never realized how many of them are born because of it.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16625
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
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
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
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
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: 13022
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Fact Finder » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:03 pm

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:
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

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:
They say so many people die because of alcohol... Perhaps they never realized how many of them are born because of it.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16625
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Fact Finder » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:13 pm

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?
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

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.
They say so many people die because of alcohol... Perhaps they never realized how many of them are born because of it.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16625
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: 4525
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am

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.
They say so many people die because of alcohol... Perhaps they never realized how many of them are born because of it.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16625
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: 13022
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:36 am

A fresh round of Democrats has announced they will not be attending the party convention in Charlotte. Most troublingly for President Obama, several of them are from North Carolina, and not only have they decided not to drop in on a convention held in their own state, they’ve refused to endorse Obama for president in 2012.

The latest round of Democrats fleeing from Obama include North Carolina congressmen Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell, plus candidate Hayden Rogers.
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

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: 4525
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am

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.
User avatar
Monker
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:45 am

Monker wrote:
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.



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:
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

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

Image
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17636
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:00 am

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.



Hell, I wish he was right because those numbers are staggering and they scare me. :shock:
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

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: 1622
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
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
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.
User avatar
Monker
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Postby Memorex » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:42 pm

It seems that many, including myself, are focusing on the negatives. I think that's because we would have rather seen something a little more thought out and efficient and of course less of a hit on the pocketbook. Others, they just ignore the financial side of it and think it's great because now "everyone" can have health care.

I believe there are a lot of good things in the bill and other things that have a great spirit behind them, but which probably won't be executed very well.

I personally do not think you can have a bill that is 100% partisan, and which more the half the country disagrees with. This should not have been done the way it was done. Period. You cannot take such a major economic issue and completely ignore the other side's economic concerns. Similarly, you cannot always just worry about yourself and not consider that a comprehensive health policy may help others.

I like that a child can stay on the plan until 26. This is an easy one because most people under 26 have very little health care costs and in today's economy, many young adults are living at home longer. As far as pre-existing conditions - tricky. It sounds great. But really tips the scale of risk for the insurance companies. And insurance companies pass any and all risk along to the consumer, as they should if they want to stay in business.

What I don't like is the penalty (tax), the new army of IRS agents, etc. The lowering of the health savings account limit to $2,500 is a horrible decision.

So I ask those that have defended this thing - do you have any ability to understand some of mine and others' concerns? Can you not step back and see that while this may help many, it's also going to raise prices and lower the actual health "care" that many now receive? It's going to be interesting (and probably very sad and frustrating) to see how millions of new patients are added with no additional medical personnel, facilities, etc. If our health system becomes one big VA (health care for veterans), we are in a world of trouble.
User avatar
Memorex
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Fact Finder » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:11 pm

Monker 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.


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.


You are officially a waste of time now.

Guess I'll waste some more on you.. :lol:

http://health.burgess.house.gov/uploade ... re_tax.pdf

and then there is this..


http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-m ... ainability


Broaden the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers.

Under current law, people who earn a salary pay the Medicare HI tax on their earned income, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness. The final legislation adopts the Senate bill approach and adds a 3.8 percent assessment (equal to the combined employer and employee share of the existing HI tax) on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business which is not a passive activity (e.g., income from active participation in S corporations) on taxpayers with respect to income above $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. The additional revenues from the tax on earned income would be credited to the HI trust fund and the revenues from the tax on unearned income would be credited to the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund.
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Memorex » Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:14 am

From the white house this morning at the bottom of their spin on the jobs numbers:

As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.


I sure hope they don't want anyone looking into that statement. With the rare exception, the revised numbers are ALWAYS worse then the initial numbers.
User avatar
Memorex
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Fact Finder » Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:20 am

This tax is actually a footnote in the Medicade Trustee Report......sons of bitches :twisted:


Monker, read it and weep, it'll make your eyes bleed and hey, maybe you will learn something for a change.


http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-conte ... tr2012.pdf


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS, Washington, D.C., April 23, 2012

HONORABLE John A. Boehner
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

HONORABLE Joseph R. Biden
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN:

We have the honor of transmitting to you the 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the 47th such report.
Respectfully,

Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds.
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee.
Charles P. Blahous III, Public Trustee.
Robert D. Reischauer, Public Trustee.
Marilyn B. Tavenner, Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Secretary, Boards of Trustees




on page 30 of the pdf file, or page 24 of the report is this nice little footnote:




14 The ACA also specifies that individuals with incomes greater than $200,000 per year and couples above $250,000 will pay an additional “Medicare contribution” of 3.8 percent on some or all of their non-work income (such as investment earnings). However, the revenues from this tax are not allocated to the Medicare trust funds.

15 Although the Trustees expect total worker compensation to grow at the same rate as GDP, wages and salaries would increase more slowly and fringe benefits (health insurance costs in particular) more rapidly. Thus, taxable earnings would gradually decline as a percentage of GDP. Absent any change to the tax rate scheduled under current law, HI payroll tax revenue would similarly decrease as a percentage of GDP (since fringe benefits are not subject to this tax). Over time, however, a growing proportion of workers will exceed the fixed earnings thresholds specified in the ACA ($200,000 and $250,000) and will become subject to the additional 0.9-percent HI payroll tax. The net effect of these factors is an increasing trend in payroll taxes as a percentage of GDP.



Note how the trustee report differs from the White Huts statement I posted above.

Trustees: However, the revenues from this tax are not allocated to the Medicare trust funds.

White Hut: The additional revenues from the tax on earned income would be credited to the HI trust fund and the revenues from the tax on unearned income would be credited to the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund.


Who ya gonna believe Monk, yourself or the Government Reports? :lol:

Need I go on?
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby Fact Finder » Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:36 am

Just 80,000 jobs added in June...

One-third at temp agencies...

85,000 WENT ON DISABILITY IN JUNE!

Unemployment rate for blacks jumps to 14.4%..
.
Rate stuck at 11% for Hispanics...

780,000 Fewer Women Employed Under Obama...

WHITE HOUSE: 'NO QUICK FIXES'...

Romney: 'It Doesn't Have To Be This Way'...

Anxiety mounts as economy limps into 2nd half...

DOW PLUNGES...

Team Obama predicted 5.6% today with stimulus...
User avatar
Fact Finder
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:19 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Save Me From The Cocaine Cowboys

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fightingilliniJRNY and 1 guest