An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes) - Page 4 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 4:54 PM on j-body.org
I almost forgot:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I don't twist anything, it is there. I understand FOX news’s alternative schools they tend skip out on that and just hope people will just forget or just stay ignorant. Fortunately, there are history books that will tell in details of it. It is just a matter of not being lazy or just have a mentality equivalent of accepting that the tooth fiery is not real as the news might be shocking for some.
I don't watch Fox, so your attempt at claiming I don't think for myself fails again. As for yourself, you rely on history books? Because history books are never biased, right? LOL.

Where do I get my info? I get it from the government databases, and examine it. I can extrapolate information based on looking at the facts, which is more than I can say for you.








Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 5:19 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Yeah, Goodwrench, just as I thought. You've read less than 10% of it. I had read more than that a year ago when Obama was doing his town hall tour (which I attended in NH), and in one of the discussion threads, I even pointed out the page numbers of where you could find the proof he was lying about it. I've read about half of it, and it isn't expanding the private sector, it's going to destroy it.
I really wanted to stay out of this set of volleys, but this stood out...
Are you basing all your "obamacare" spielings on an outdated plan, which hardly resembles the bill that was actually passed?




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 5:25 PM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Yeah, Goodwrench, just as I thought. You've read less than 10% of it. I had read more than that a year ago when Obama was doing his town hall tour (which I attended in NH), and in one of the discussion threads, I even pointed out the page numbers of where you could find the proof he was lying about it. I've read about half of it, and it isn't expanding the private sector, it's going to destroy it.
I really wanted to stay out of this set of volleys, but this stood out...
Are you basing all your "obamacare" spielings on an outdated plan, which hardly resembles the bill that was actually passed?
Nope. I downloaded it in various forms, including the one that was signed into law. However, I can tell you that it does not differ much from the one I downloaded last summer.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, August 09, 2010 11:24 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:


Yeah, Goodwrench, just as I thought. You've read less than 10% of it. I had read more than that a year ago when Obama was doing his town hall tour (which I attended in NH), and in one of the discussion threads, I even pointed out the page numbers of where you could find the proof he was lying about it. I've read about half of it, and it isn't expanding the private sector, it's going to destroy it.]

Yep, you went by sound bytes rather than reading... no wonder you come out sounding ignorant on this, along with many other subjects.
Quote:

As for the stocks going up, that's because we've got 4 years before many of the things take place that are going to really change things, and Wall Street is all about making the buck now and worry about getting out later.
So you're admitting WS is getting ready screw us over again?
Quote:

As for your "fixing" of my statement regarding the deficit Obama inherited, look up the real numbers, and listen to him in his own words in November of 08 about how unsustainable these $400 billion budget deficits were. However, within one month, he managed to get his $787 billion "stimulus" bill, and then the $400 billion Omnibus bill a couple of short months later. Hypocrisy, and you've got your blinders on if you think otherwise.
Really, your ignorance speaks volumes about you.
A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-grappling-with-fall_n_387121.html
Quote:

And what a surprise that you missed the point again about the defense spending. The percentage of increase in the defense budget declined under Reagan. If you're capable, do the math. I spelled it out for your before, and if I remember correctly (I'm sure I do), you blew a gasket with some bold size 5 words screaming about billions.
Was this another of those "debunking" BS you claim to do. And what a surprise, you can't read numbers now. You do realize the money spent went up? What a illiterate SOB!
But I'll play along now you want to use percentage instead of actual money spent, fine.
US military spending as a percentage of GDP:
1976 5.2
1977 4.9
1978 4.7
1979 4.6
1980 4.9
1981 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
or
US military spending as a percentage of discretionary spending:
1976 51.2
1977 49.5
1978 47.8
1979 48.7
1980 48.7
1981 51.3
1982 57.0
1983 59.4
1984 60.1
1985 60.9
1986 62.4
1987 63.6
1988 62.6
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#ref-1
And in the end, you will still not admit that your master was a mass spender, including on defense.

Quote:

Want to call me the illiterate SOB again?

Just did. Give us another one, or better yet give us another hypocritical moment.
Quote:

Yes, and why was it so much higher by then? Because of the ever-stretching reach of the CRA, and how it empowered Fannie and Freddie to push banks into offering loans to the less than credit worthy, with terms that they wouldn't be able to keep up with. And who expanded these powers? Hmmm? You've got about an inch more to offer than Bill does. At least you make an attempt by quoting someone. However, you both fail to accept the fact that the problem was based in the liberal attempts at market manipulation. It was all about "fairness", but in reality, it was all about power.
In the 90's they left the dog leash a little loose. In the new millennium, they put the dog completely asleep.
But I don't expect you to understand nor admit the history of it. Lastly, on this, refer to my initial quotes and/or vid on this.
Quote:

I don't watch Fox, so your attempt at claiming I don't think for myself fails again

I stand corrected. You swing on Rush Limbaugh's right nut, not FOX news.
Quote:

As for yourself, you rely on history books? Because history books are never biased, right? LOL.

History/economic books tells you in details of what happened. It is more reliable then hearing sound bytes over the radio. Again I don't expect you to know the difference.
Quote:

Where do I get my info? I get it from the government databases, and examine it. I can extrapolate information based on looking at the facts, which is more than I can say for you.

And now for the third time... and answer the question. Are you really that illiterate or are you just f-ing with me?
Quote:

Nope. I downloaded it in various forms, including the one that was signed into law. However, I can tell you that it does not differ much from the one I downloaded last summer.
Right (no pun intended). And here's where you show you didn't read squat. From original plan, to last summers, to what was passed in the spring, there were many changes. But say that your read it, just to give you ammunition (albeit blanks) when you want to run Glenn Becks modo that this was socialism... oops Rush's modo.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:15 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

I almost forgot:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Where do I get my info? I get it from the government databases, and examine it. I can extrapolate information based on looking at the facts, which is more than I can say for you.

*facepalm*

He incessantly preaches mistrust of the government, then in the next breath insists he must be right because he uses Government-derived figures. Never mind the fact that he spins every number to suit his misplaced agenda when he "examines" and "extrapolates."

Nobody's buying it, RWE. You get your agenda from right-wing extremist sources who "teach" you how to spin their dogma with commonly available "data". Your game is up, dude. You are one of an army of robotic drones who can do little more than parrot the information spoon-fed to them by their wingnut masters. Welcome to mental slavery.





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:44 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

bk3k, you're way off in almost every point you just made, and I'll be happy to prove it later. (I don't have all the links and data on my phone to show you the numbers). Tax revenue has been proven to increase when taxes are lowered. Raising taxes to reduce the deficit is a tired argument. The numbers don't support it.
Well If you say I'm wrong on almost everything, that proves it. Tax revenue has not been proven to increase when taxes are lower. Rather, that is how you choose to creatively interpret the numbers. I've seen them.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Second, "'Bush's drunken spending spree" is nothing compared to the last 18 months. If you even attempt at arguing that point, it's laughable. The bottom line is that this is a tax-and-spend administration, and Congress. Tax-and spend kills the econonomy. Also, it should be noted that the last budget before the Democrats controlled Congress, had less than a $200B deficit. For the last 4 years, we have had Democrat spending.
Prepare to laugh. Obama's budget -
1. Start off with the budget as is has been going
2. Include all spending items in the regular budget instead of hiding behind special funding, special accounting tricks to obscure the costs. It what you where really spending anyways but LOOKS much bigger.
3. Add the cost of enforcing TARP as passed by GWB (its not blame - its fact)
4. Automatic increases already in place kick in. For example, food stamp spending and unemployment spending goes up when people aren't working.
5. Tax revenue dropping through the floor. Even absolutely equal spending with less revenue would equal bigger deficit spending - obviously.
6. The stimulus. This one is all Obama's baby. Its a big baby too. While I need to re-lookup the exact breakdown of the final version of this, IIRC a cool 42% of this was technically in the form of one tax break or another. Namely, a tax incentive for one thing or another - means tax not paid and government revenue not collected. Those temporary tax breaks add to the deficit spending as such. You can argue about the necessity of the whole thing all you want - claiming that things would not be worse (or even better) without the stimulus, but that didn't happen and so its all speculation on your part. A path not taken after the fact is ALWAYS speculation/guessing.
7. Auto bailout and cash-for clunkers. Again Obama's doing(of course Bush also did a bailout for them too). Well those companies are looking much better now. Money well spent IMO.
8. HCR. Yep, it will cost money, but the real effect on the total economy is something only time will tell. My personally speculation is that in 20 years Republican politicians will mostly all deny that they where opposed to this.

Hope that gave you a good laugh.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Bush was foolish for signing the budgets instead of pushing back, but I'm seriously sick of the feeble tactics of blaming Bush.
Then I assume you are sick of blaming Clinton? Or perhaps you enjoy having it both ways too much?

Actually, there are certain contributing factors that happened in the Clinton years, but not the ones you believe in. It comes more so down to the deeds of Rubin and his ilk.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Last, we did not have economic growth because of the housing bubble.
If you really believe this, you need to do some serious research my friend.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

By the way, here's something that I'd love to hear you explain away with your conservative bashing bullsh!t:

The most recent tax cuts, in 2003, resulted in increased tax revenues for each of the following years, after declining for the previous years (from it's peak in 2000):
2000 - 2.025 trillion
2001 - 1.991 "
2002 - 1.853 "
2003 - 1.782 "
2004 - 1.880 "
2005 - 2.153 "
2006 - 2.407 "
2007 - 2.568 "
2008 - 2.524 "

Note that while rates were lowered, the result was an increase in revenue, when the revenue had been declining. Lower rates increases the tax base (number of people paying in) and as a result, increases revenue. Oh, yeah, and as a side note, this was while we were supposedly gutting the manufacturing base, making it impossible for the same plan to work now, right?

Again you ignore the increase in population as a reason why revenues increased.
That is part true, but more importantly is that is based off of economic growth on a bubble. The false growth would increase tax revenue just the same as real sustainable economic growth would - until the bubble bursts anyways - even with ZERO population growth. Add to that the population growth, and obviously the revenue will increase. Forgetting about the bubble for a moment, I'll even take RWE's numbers at face value and do a little math.

Quote:


Year Revenue Population Revenue Per capa
2000 2,025,000,000,000 282,171,957 7176.4750173242764871918154503213
2001 1,991,000,000,000 285,081,556 6983.9663706620150480727697445288
2002 1,853,000,000,000 287,803,914 6438.4113970041422021800579126245
2003 1,782,000,000,000 290,326,418 6137.9188717163175966990368751079
2004 1,880,000,000,000 293,045,739 6415.3807743984975669617226544966
2005 2,153,000,000,000 295,753,151 7279.7195658618697185072425483643
2006 2,407,000,000,000 298,593,212 8061.1343569324007271806299468054
2007 2,568,000,000,000 301,579,895 8515.1564894602805004624064876739
2008 2,524,000,000,000 304,374,846 8292.4066596488725615650906974093

That jumble would look much better if this site didn't entirely delete all white space save for 1 space. If you quote me and post that in any text editor, it will look MUCH nicer.

But you see, where it that these numbers where not inflated by the bubble and instead natural... RWE would be right(assuming full faith in the source of his numbers). The revenue per capa DID increase. If you factor in inflation... things look differently, but that is another matter.

However RWE - the bubble is real. There is SO MUCH information out there as to what happened and how. Just how much has been posted here in this forum?! Have you read ANY of it sir?! Trillions of dollars disappeared overnight. It disappeared, in part because they where trading something with almost no real worth. Once the truth got exposed, the gig was up.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

In 1994, $11 billion of subprime mortgages were sold on the secondary market; in 2003, it was more than $200 billion.
Yes, and why was it so much higher by then? Because of the ever-stretching reach of the CRA, and how it empowered Fannie and Freddie to push banks into offering loans to the less than credit worthy, with terms that they wouldn't be able to keep up with.
For I while I believed this to be true - or should I say part of the cause of the financial meltdown, Then... I read the actual legislation. What you have been taught is a lie. The banks where in no way, shape, or form forced into providing credit for the un-credit worthy no matter their race. There is an exception in the legislation - clear as day - specifically that they NEVER need to loan to a high risk loaner - no matter all other factors. They are NOT required to do so.

For you to believe otherwise means only one thing - you have not read it. I assure you, the banks did. They issued those risky loans because of how quick they could sell them off to suckers(who think their AAA rated "investment" will be delivering dividends for a long time). The issuing bank gets quick profit (and bonuses for bankers), and have alleviated all risk(to themselves) from that loan.

I could go back over all this complex issue in great detail AGAIN, but It may be a miracle if I can get people to read what has already been written.





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:50 AM on j-body.org
Wow. Such an onslaught of outbursts.

bk3k, I don't have time right now to go through everything and respond, but since you make some points, I will give it the due time this evening if I have it. I will say this quickly: I have read the CRA. I have a copy of it. You are right, in a sense, that the banks were not forced through fines or other hard penalties. However, they were rated by the FHA on their sub-prime mortgage statistics, and if they did not comply with the CRA legislation, they were given low ratings. Also, remember that Fannie and Freddie guaranteed these mortgages. If you ran a bank, and were given bad marks by a government entity to not write sub-prime mortgages, and you were told that the mortgages were guaranteed, would you walk away from them, or would you do what you needed to do to stay in business. It's a moral conundrum, I assure you, but you can't exactly just write it off as them being greedy.

As for you other two comprehension-challenged jokers, I'll condense your idiocy and respond appropriately:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Yep, you went by sound bytes rather than reading... no wonder you come out sounding ignorant on this, along with many other subjects.
So you're admitting WS is getting ready screw us over again?
A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.
Was this another of those "debunking" BS you claim to do. And what a surprise, you can't read numbers now. You do realize the money spent went up?
History/economic books tells you in details of what happened. It is more reliable then hearing sound bytes over the radio. Again I don't expect you to know the difference.
And here's where you show you didn't read squat. From original plan, to last summers, to what was passed in the spring, there were many changes.
LOL. So first, you try again to just claim that you know I haven't read it, and I use sound bites? LOL. You are grasping at straws here. As for Wall Street screwing us over, do you really even understand the concept of how things work in the stock market? It's all just a betting game. You think that just because someone is betting on a company making money for a few years that they are screwing you? And look, you picked a liberal media site, quoting a forthcoming study by a liberal think tank (yeah, if you think the CBPP is neutral, you're high) that points to Bush as causing all of Obama's problems. Nice source there, bud. No slant there.

And yeah, you've still misread everything about the defense budget, because it's obvious who's the real illiterate SOB here. I never, in this thread or the last one we had this discussion, said that the budget didn't go up. What I said was that Carter's annual increases to the defense budget were by a larger percentage than Reagan's increases were. I did not say Carters budgets were larger. So again, reading > you.
As for your claim of history books being the better source because they give you more info. Laughable. They are still biased to tell the narrative that the authors want to tell. They still cherry pick info (hey, you claim this for everything that you disagree with, but can't accept it in your own sources. LOL) to push you toward a conclusion.
And we're back to the health care bill again (you talk in circles. do you realize that? LOL). The bill that was passed is very close to the one from last summer. There were a few things changed, but all-in-all, it's the same bill. How do I know this? Because I've got them both.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

He incessantly preaches mistrust of the government, then in the next breath insists he must be right because he uses Government-derived figures.
There's a difference between mistrusting the leaders in power, lying about what's in the bills they are passing, and the actual statistical branches that simply track what's going on. Still trying so hard to discredit, and you still can't do sh!t but nay-say. The rest of your banter is just more of the typical crap that you post, where you spend your whole time with your claims of my ignorance or following. In the end, it's all you've got, and you continue to prove it.





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:51 AM on j-body.org
You may try to avoid these posts because "you don't have time", act hurt and lash out because you feel you've been ganged-up on, and then roll it all into yet another cheap shot at me, in yet another lame attempt to divert attention.

It won't work. Please stick to the information presented. As you do, perhaps take a moment to consider why you've been faced with this "onslaught of outbursts". If you reflect long and hard enough, you may learn something about yourself and your approach. I will admit that I am not confident you will (or even can), but I remain ever hopeful about the human condition.








Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:06 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You may try to avoid these posts because "you don't have time", act hurt and lash out because you feel you've been ganged-up on, and then roll it all into yet another cheap shot at me, in yet another lame attempt to divert attention.

It won't work. Please stick to the information presented. As you do, perhaps take a moment to consider why you've been faced with this "onslaught of outbursts". If you reflect long and hard enough, you may learn something about yourself and your approach. I will admit that I am not confident you will (or even can), but I remain ever hopeful about the human condition.
LMAO. Once more, reading > you

I didn't have the time to fully respond to bk3k, because his post was worthy of more consideration than a quick response. It was a compliment to him, not a butt-hurt whine. His post was thought provoking.

On the other hand, your posts took no time to respond to, because they provoked nothing more than laughter. The same goes for Goodwrench.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:25 AM on j-body.org
Guys, I tried. He's taking (what he thinks is) the easy way out, preferring to focus on me instead of the information.

Everyone's done a great job of adding good information here. As in the other current thread, I've already said my piece, so I'll now back away and allow RWE to address the information and formulate an actual rebuttal. I'll only interject if I feel I can add to the conversation, as opposed to just fueling RWE's need to lash out and/or distract.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:53 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Guys, I tried. He's taking (what he thinks is) the easy way out, preferring to focus on me instead of the information.
Do you really think so? LMAO. This is what YOU do, not me. I post info, you attack me. Pure hypocrisy on your part. You're only digging your hole deeper with every idiotic post you make.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I'll only interject if I feel I can add to the conversation, as opposed to just fueling RWE's need to lash out and/or distract.
If only this were true. You interject yourself into every thread with nothing but nay-saying and attacking the messenger.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:57 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Yeah, Goodwrench, just as I thought. You've read less than 10% of it. I had read more than that a year ago when Obama was doing his town hall tour (which I attended in NH), and in one of the discussion threads, I even pointed out the page numbers of where you could find the proof he was lying about it. I've read about half of it, and it isn't expanding the private sector, it's going to destroy it.
I really wanted to stay out of this set of volleys, but this stood out...
Are you basing all your "obamacare" spielings on an outdated plan, which hardly resembles the bill that was actually passed?
Nope. I downloaded it in various forms, including the one that was signed into law. However, I can tell you that it does not differ much from the one I downloaded last summer.
I could swear the 'town hall' tour included a public option? Your "destroy the private sector" would also hint to this, right? Removing the public option was certainly the biggest change to the bill that could have been made...
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

bk3k, I don't have time right now to go through everything and respond, but since you make some points, I will give it the due time this evening if I have it.
Looking forward to this; at least discussions between you two put more on the table than personal attacks. Bill hates 'data', but I truly appreciate the effort you guys put forward to mine it.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

I didn't have the time to fully respond to bk3k, because his post was worthy of more consideration than a quick response. It was a compliment to him, not a butt-hurt whine. His post was thought provoking.

On the other hand, your posts took no time to respond to, because they provoked nothing more than laughter. The same goes for Goodwrench.
Yeah, that sounds about right, lol.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:05 AM on j-body.org
Oh, I don't hate data, I just deplore the way RWE gets high, mighty and self-justified in using it. He never leaves room for discussion, insists that his "facts" are all that matters, and leaves it at that while pouring derision on anyone who would DARE question his "facts".

The bare fact is this, folks...since I returned, activity in this forum has SKYROCKETED. That's one piece of data that can't be twisted to suit ANY dogma or agenda. Face it...like it or hate it, my participation drives traffic, commentary, and interest. It ain't all about "data", my friends (oh, that sure sounded McCain-ish!)

Now back to the real discussion, if you ladies can stop focusing on me long enough





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:26 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Oh, I don't hate data, I just deplore the way RWE gets high, mighty and self-justified in using it. He never leaves room for discussion, insists that his "facts" are all that matters, and leaves it at that while pouring derision on anyone who would DARE question his "facts".
Pure whining here, Bill. I've asked you to discuss facts I've posted up, but you decline. Don't cry that I deride you for questioning them. You've never done anything but question them in attempts to cast doubt. You don't ever attempt to make a counter point with your own facts. Then you cry about how I don't leave room for discussion? LOL

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The bare fact is this, folks...since I returned, activity in this forum has SKYROCKETED. That's one piece of data that can't be twisted to suit ANY dogma or agenda. Face it...like it or hate it, my participation drives traffic, commentary, and interest.
LOL. Now who was it that you said was high on himself? Activity may be up, but it's not useful. Stop acting like you're somhow important here. While you were away, a few people actually came back and discussed things in an adult manner. Now that you're back, it's filled with idiocy again.






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:28 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Oh, I don't hate data, I just deplore the way RWE gets high, mighty and self-justified in using it. He never leaves room for discussion, insists that his "facts" are all that matters, and leaves it at that while pouring derision on anyone who would DARE question his "facts".
I've noticed that a lot of the arguments between you/Goodwrench and Quik have been over misunderstandings in teminology. Quik likes to use rates, while you prefer straight quantities, and you try to use the two interchangeably, which simply isn't possible since the represent two different concepts entirely.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The bare fact is this, folks...since I returned, activity in this forum has SKYROCKETED. That's one piece of data that can't be twisted to suit ANY dogma or agenda. Face it...like it or hate it, my participation drives traffic, commentary, and interest.
Definitely not going to disagree that activity has gone up; it was getting rather boring for a while with just Taetsch and ScottA throwing up mostly incoherent ramblings about the latest Beck-buster. BUT, the inevitable bitch-fests the threads eventually turn into now got old shortly after your return...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:33 AM on j-body.org
I like this one:
RightWingDataMiner wrote:

Stop acting like you're somhow (sic) important here.

Pure, unadulterated, supremely arrogant Quik. I love how he acts when his rock has been flipped over, forcing him to squint into the daylight.





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:43 AM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The bare fact is this, folks...since I returned, activity in this forum has SKYROCKETED. That's one piece of data that can't be twisted to suit ANY dogma or agenda. Face it...like it or hate it, my participation drives traffic, commentary, and interest.
Definitely not going to disagree that activity has gone up; it was getting rather boring for a while with just Taetsch and ScottA throwing up mostly incoherent ramblings about the latest Beck-buster. BUT, the inevitable bitch-fests the threads eventually turn into now got old shortly after your return...

Well, you know what they say...this is the Internet, after all. You have two very clear choices...read it, or click that red X. Excitement and interest don't come from droll, gentlemanly exchanges that put folks to sleep. Nor does much actual exchange of ideas or exposure to alternate points of view. Frankly, I think you all benefit from the goading, no matter how loathe you are to admit it.

I, for one, really enjoy British Parliament sessions. Those good ol' boys really know how to lay it out there and tear each other a new hiney. I'd like to see more such debate in the USA houses of Congress, but 'decorum' rules the day...probably so truly contentious subjects can be taken care of in their preferred format, behind closed doors.

They also say "it takes two to tango", so that's the other way to avoid such rough play here...just don't participate. As long as it is being perpetuated, there are always at least TWO participants, not just me.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:56 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I, for one, really enjoy British Parliament sessions. Those good ol' boys really know how to lay it out there and tear each other a new hiney. I'd like to see more such debate in the USA houses of Congress, but 'decorum' rules the day...probably so truly contentious subjects can be taken care of in their preferred format, behind closed doors.
Did you see Weiner the other day? Lol, it was definitely not boring
You can skip the first 00:31, as the commentator is just explaining his poor understanding of procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR4tSFBPE5o&feature=channel




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:17 AM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

Definitely not going to disagree that activity has gone up; it was getting rather boring for a while with just Taetsch and ScottA throwing up mostly incoherent ramblings about the latest Beck-buster. BUT, the inevitable bitch-fests the threads eventually turn into now got old shortly after your return...
You left John H out of that list.

However, you would be one of the few people who returned recently that I would be referring to.


OHV notec wrote:

Did you see Weiner the other day? Lol, it was definitely not boring
That was hilarious. Enjoyable, for sure.

OHV notec wrote:

I could swear the 'town hall' tour included a public option? Your "destroy the private sector" would also hint to this, right? Removing the public option was certainly the biggest change to the bill that could have been made...
Yes, that was removed. However, things such as the requirement to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions remained. Everyone seemed to be for that, but I explained why it would be disasterous. It doesn't take a lot of thought to see where this will go. If you can get coverage for something you already have, that cost has to come from somewhere, since you're going to be paying less in premiums that the insurance company will be paying out. This will mean that they will have to raise premiums. Now, the simple fact of premiums going up is going to mean more outrage, and as I mentioned months ago in one of the health care threads, taking out the public option was just for show. I said they would be brining it back later when the bill didn't accomplish what they claimed it would, which is to lower the costs. Let's also not forget that there are plenty of people who will be committing what amounts to insurance fraud, (though it would now be legal) by cancelling their insurance until they were sick and needed it. Think of what would happen if this were implemented in the auto insurance industry. You could ride around without collision coverage on your car, but then when you get in an accident, your insurance company couldn't refuse to pay for the damages when you decided to add that coverage. Again, the money has to come from somewhere, so if the company can't raise your rates alone, they have to raise everyone's so that they are taking in more than they pay out.

Also, they can refuse to let insurance companies raise their rates to necessary levels if/when this happens, which means the company would simply go out of business if it was taking in less than it was paying out. Again, it's not rocket science here, it's basic actuarial math. This is what I mean by the bill will destroy the private sector. If the bill as it was passed gets fully implemented, the end result will be that costs are higher than ever, and companies will be going out of business. I also have pointed out that the public option was done in my own state about 5 years ago, and it was a colossal failure. The costs were ridiculously high, and the plan ended up shutting out new enrollees because they couldn't afford to take on any more.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:45 AM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I, for one, really enjoy British Parliament sessions. Those good ol' boys really know how to lay it out there and tear each other a new hiney. I'd like to see more such debate in the USA houses of Congress, but 'decorum' rules the day...probably so truly contentious subjects can be taken care of in their preferred format, behind closed doors.
Did you see Weiner the other day? Lol, it was definitely not boring
You can skip the first 00:31, as the commentator is just explaining his poor understanding of procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR4tSFBPE5o&feature=channel

Nice! Good to see some actual passion in those tired chambers. Seeing Imus can still actually draw a breath was just a bonus, lol...what do they give him now, formaldehyde transfusions? I am thinking "Weekend at Donnie's" when I see that living corpse...






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:48 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

Definitely not going to disagree that activity has gone up; it was getting rather boring for a while with just Taetsch and ScottA throwing up mostly incoherent ramblings about the latest Beck-buster. BUT, the inevitable bitch-fests the threads eventually turn into now got old shortly after your return...
You left John H out of that list.
I originally had him listed, but then thought that his appearance was after Bill's resurrection. Besides, John is at least entertaining, rather than annoying.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

I could swear the 'town hall' tour included a public option? Your "destroy the private sector" would also hint to this, right? Removing the public option was certainly the biggest change to the bill that could have been made...
Yes, that was removed. However, things such as the requirement to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions remained. Everyone seemed to be for that, but I explained why it would be disastrous. It doesn't take a lot of thought to see where this will go. If you can get coverage for something you already have, that cost has to come from somewhere, since you're going to be paying less in premiums that the insurance company will be paying out. This will mean that they will have to raise premiums. Now, the simple fact of premiums going up is going to mean more outrage, and as I mentioned months ago in one of the health care threads, taking out the public option was just for show. I said they would be brining it back later when the bill didn't accomplish what they claimed it would, which is to lower the costs. Let's also not forget that there are plenty of people who will be committing what amounts to insurance fraud, (though it would now be legal) by cancelling their insurance until they were sick and needed it. Think of what would happen if this were implemented in the auto insurance industry. You could ride around without collision coverage on your car, but then when you get in an accident, your insurance company couldn't refuse to pay for the damages when you decided to add that coverage. Again, the money has to come from somewhere, so if the company can't raise your rates alone, they have to raise everyone's so that they are taking in more than they pay out.

Also, they can refuse to let insurance companies raise their rates to necessary levels if/when this happens, which means the company would simply go out of business if it was taking in less than it was paying out. Again, it's not rocket science here, it's basic actuarial math. This is what I mean by the bill will destroy the private sector. If the bill as it was passed gets fully implemented, the end result will be that costs are higher than ever, and companies will be going out of business. I also have pointed out that the public option was done in my own state about 5 years ago, and it was a colossal failure. The costs were ridiculously high, and the plan ended up shutting out new enrollees because they couldn't afford to take on any more.
While there are certain things that could lower rates somewhat (shopping across state lines), claiming the bill, as passed, will lower rates is ridiculous (and all the politicians claiming otherwise is just disgraceful). With the public option there was something of a possibility, albeit unlikely, but now raises are inevitable (my provider sent me a nice little letter warning of this after the bill was passed).
However, I'm not opposed to paying a little more if it means people won't be denied for pre-existing conditions, and if students can remain covered under their parents' plans through college, etc. I truly believe this was a step in the right direction.
Cases, such as people only buying after getting sick, obviously need to be dealt with still. I can only hope that these issues are addressed by future legislation, just as I can only hope all the frivolous lawsuits will be addressed. It's not like things can't be revised in the future. Just like AZ SB1070 was severely lacking initially, things can be fixed.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:49 AM on j-body.org
Imus still looks better than Keith Richards has in years, but he's still going. LOL






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:37 PM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

Prepare to laugh. Obama's budget -
1. Start off with the budget as is has been going
2. Include all spending items in the regular budget instead of hiding behind special funding, special accounting tricks to obscure the costs. It what you where really spending anyways but LOOKS much bigger.
While what you say makes sense, I'll ask in the words of a nay-sayer when I made a similar statement about budgets: "what are these accounting tricks?"
bk3k wrote:

3. Add the cost of enforcing TARP as passed by GWB (its not blame - its fact)
Except that Obama voted for it. Can't blame something on the previous administration that you voted for.
bk3k wrote:

4. Automatic increases already in place kick in. For example, food stamp spending and unemployment spending goes up when people aren't working.
Agreed. This is one of the points I made about getting people back to work being the most important thing. You can't start doing serious damage to the deficit unless you can get some of the recipients back onto the paying side again.
bk3k wrote:

5. Tax revenue dropping through the floor. Even absolutely equal spending with less revenue would equal bigger deficit spending - obviously.
See my previous statement
bk3k wrote:

6. The stimulus. This one is all Obama's baby. Its a big baby too. While I need to re-lookup the exact breakdown of the final version of this, IIRC a cool 42% of this was technically in the form of one tax break or another. Namely, a tax incentive for one thing or another - means tax not paid and government revenue not collected. Those temporary tax breaks add to the deficit spending as such. You can argue about the necessity of the whole thing all you want - claiming that things would not be worse (or even better) without the stimulus, but that didn't happen and so its all speculation on your part. A path not taken after the fact is ALWAYS speculation/guessing.
I would be interested where you get the 42% figure. For example, on the income tax side, a $400 credit for individuals at the bottom isn't a huge chunk of the $787 billion. The housing tax credit is more significant on a per-instance basis, but again, I would like to see where these numbers come from.
bk3k wrote:

7. Auto bailout and cash-for clunkers. Again Obama's doing(of course Bush also did a bailout for them too). Well those companies are looking much better now. Money well spent IMO.
This is a separate debate, but I'll leave it at this: it was all about the UAW. GM and Chrysler would have come through better off if they were allowed to go through a real bankruptsy, but that would have left the unions having to negotiate a new contract. Also, when you consider that the new Volt earns a $7500 tax credit, it doesn't look like GM really paid back the TARP money, does it? This is an example of an accounting trick. It's borderline money laundering when you cut to the chase.
bk3k wrote:

8. HCR. Yep, it will cost money, but the real effect on the total economy is something only time will tell. My personally speculation is that in 20 years Republican politicians will mostly all deny that they where opposed to this.
Well, then, we'll have to keep in touch so you can say "I told you so" in 20 years.

However, with regard to the money issue here, only Washington can take a program that offers benefits for six years, but gets paid for over 10 years, and claim it's a savings. LOL. I wish I could do this with my bills! Also, when you look at the savings they claim, it still doesn't even keep up with the CBO analysis of the cost. Again, only Washington can claim saving billions by spending over a trillion. You have to love that.


bk3k wrote:

hat is part true, but more importantly is that is based off of economic growth on a bubble. The false growth would increase tax revenue just the same as real sustainable economic growth would - until the bubble bursts anyways - even with ZERO population growth. Add to that the population growth, and obviously the revenue will increase. Forgetting about the bubble for a moment, I'll even take RWE's numbers at face value and do a little math.
I'm curious what you think happened in 2003 that caused the housing market to bubble in such a way that they turned around the revenue decline. After all, the measures for sub-prime mortgages were in place long before this.

With regards to the numbers you posted, I don't have the time right now, but later on I'll dump them into a spreadsheet and clean it up. They're interesting numbers, and I do have something to say about them. I would like to point out that you just blew a hole in the theory of the increase in revenue being due to the population growth, though.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:45 PM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

However, I'm not opposed to paying a little more if it means people won't be denied for pre-existing conditions, and if students can remain covered under their parents' plans through college, etc. I truly believe this was a step in the right direction.
Cases, such as people only buying after getting sick, obviously need to be dealt with still. I can only hope that these issues are addressed by future legislation, just as I can only hope all the frivolous lawsuits will be addressed. It's not like things can't be revised in the future. Just like AZ SB1070 was severely lacking initially, things can be fixed.
It's not going to be a little more, it's going to be a lot more, for the reason I stated. It's going to be abused.

As for future legislation fixing it, this is something I'm against. The bill should have been broken down, and measures addressed separately, instead of passing a huge bill, and then having to fix it later. As for the tort reform, that was never on the table. Republicans were calling for it, but it was ignored entirely (remember, this was one of those times when Obama was claiming that he was opening the discussion to the Republicans, and they weren't offering anything, but they just wanted to shoot down reform all together?). Tort reform and allowing the purchasing of insurance across state lines would have cost nothing, and helped costs immensely, but as I pointed out before, this bill was focussed on gaining more Federal power.

Allowing students to remain on their parents' plan longer was a good move. However, that isn't even a page in the 2000+ page bill. This is another example of where something could have been done without a huge expansion of bureaucracy. There were so many things they could have done without spending a dime, but they wouldn't settle for it.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:13 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

It's not going to be a little more, it's going to be a lot more, for the reason I stated. It's going to be abused.
Abuse shouldn't significantly affect costs for quite a while. I have yet to hear someone say "hooray, now I can drop my coverage until I get sick!" I guess I just don't expect it to be as widespread as you do?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

As for future legislation fixing it, this is something I'm against. The bill should have been broken down, and measures addressed separately, instead of passing a huge bill, and then having to fix it later. As for the tort reform, that was never on the table. Republicans were calling for it, but it was ignored entirely (remember, this was one of those times when Obama was claiming that he was opening the discussion to the Republicans, and they weren't offering anything, but they just wanted to shoot down reform all together?). Tort reform and allowing the purchasing of insurance across state lines would have cost nothing, and helped costs immensely, but as I pointed out before, this bill was focussed on gaining more Federal power.
It's not that they wanted to shoot down reform alltogether, it's that they wanted to shoot down everything that had been proposed so far. I can't count how many times I heard "We need to start over" from the GOP. I agree it would be nice if every little aspect could be addressed seperately, but we all know that's not how politics work in Washington, on either side of the aisle. All that would mean is that every little aspect would have pork tacked on by every senator who votes for it...
I really don't think this bill was to expand Federal power. If that was the case, there is no way in hell they would have dropped the public option. I think this was just another move to show that they're actually doing something.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search