A small glimmer of hope on health care

[caryc]

MikeyDokey:do you know Anything about the Green Party?
What the F is wrong with trying to get along, social justice, non-violence & being responsible stewards of Earth?

Your avatar pretty much sums it up! Guess you 'base' your self on being an Obama hater. It WILL be 7 more years!...then Hillary(just kidding).

rstewart,I was just there for 10 great days.You want to see "red":go to East TX!
I am not reconsidering moving anywhere based on my political views.I will keep my Obama bumpersticker on thank you!
Heck,I'll buy you latte at Greenlife (grocery) OK?

el gus:Thanks for being civil(ha ha)... Reagan was a piece of evil & deep down you know it!I just reread "Sleepwalking Through History"(about the RR era). It just reinforced all the 'great' things that monkey did:Deregulate everything so him & his rich capitalist pig cronies get richer is the bottom line.He was surrounded by his cronies who pretty much were given a blank slate so as to undo most of the good/needed regulations:'WallSt."/stock market stuff & enviromental reg.'s especially...UGH
He planted the seeds for deep-shit we're in now.(Thats a PERIOD!!)
Cheney & Dumbo perpetuated them(Clinton was part of it too,as his dumb-ass lost Both houses for the first time in recent 'memory).

Peace & Joy...

[caryc]

I'm not totally against capitalism either: just not unbridled/unregulated 'amok-ness'(yeah, a new word!)

[JC]

Nov 26, 2009 11:54:47 GMT -5 rstewart said:

Nov 26, 2009 9:38:39 GMT -5 JC said:

I wouldn't call it hard core red. More red then blue,no doubt,but not hard core.

As far as hard core tree huggers,not too many of those around except for certain areas.

Maybe not in downtown Chatt but come to the burbs and tell me it aint' RED. Ooltewah, Hixon, East Brainerd, All RED. And we won't even discuss Bradley County, where not a single D holds elected office. Not one.

There are MANY conservationist in this area, maybe not hard core tree huggers but certainly many are concerned with nature and wildlife and clean water. Mostly because there are tens of thousands of us who enjoy fishing and hunting and it's only in our best interests to keep the resources in good condition for re-population.

What,you mean to tell me that small areas in the south are populated by southern Republicans? Who'd thunk!

[daworm]

el gus:Thanks for being civil(ha ha)... Reagan was a piece of evil & deep down you know it!I just reread "Sleepwalking Through History"(about the RR era). It just reinforced all the 'great' things that monkey did:Deregulate everything so him & his rich capitalist pig cronies get richer is the bottom line.He was surrounded by his cronies who pretty much were given a blank slate so as to undo most of the good/needed regulations:'WallSt."/stock market stuff & enviromental reg.'s especially...UGH
He planted the seeds for deep-shit we're in now.(Thats a PERIOD!!)
Cheney & Dumbo perpetuated them(Clinton was part of it too,as his dumb-ass lost Both houses for the first time in recent 'memory). (emphasis mine)

A fine example of why it does no good to argue with a liberal. Quick to call names, slow to provide any actual arguments. Quick to make accusations that one action or another are somehow the personification of evil, but never provide any reasoning as to why, and if you call them on it, they'll just say you must be dumb if you don't see it. To me, much of what Reagan did was proper, and unlike caryc, I'll explain why I think so. To me, the role of government in business should be minimal. Not non-existent, however. Government should not by policy prop any business up, nor hold any business down. Determining the winners and losers should be up to natural market forces. Government can and should be able to regulate business, but must do so fairly. Proper regulation would include worker safety and product safety, as examples. Much of the "deregulation" and "enviromental (sic) reg.'s" Reagan removed were put in place not to keep businesses fair, they were put in place to keep businesses held back. They had nothing to do with what was fair, or whether they were in the best interests of the American people. There are things that only government can do. TVA and the interstate highway system are two examples often brought up (although I'm not totally convinced about the interstate as a 100% proper example, as the railroad before it was mostly privately funded). Everything else that can be done in the private sector should be. I'm a big believer that the Post Office has been obsolete for at least two decades and that we'd all have a lot less junk mail if delivering it wasn't subsidized by the government, for instance.

Now, as to East Tennessee being red, that may be. You'll find most working people highly in favor of the socialist TVA, and highly against the socialist Welfare state. Why? Probably because most of the people around here, while they might not express it in these terms, believe that what the constitution guarantees is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. TVA provided a chance for many families to become gainfully employed at a level never before seen in the region, and opened the door for many other opportunities. Welfare, and other handout programs like it, does none of that. The cliche' rings true around here, "a hand up, not a hand out". It used to be most people around here had pride in being able to support themselves, and to be on the dole was a source of extreme shame. Not so much anymore, though, but many still feel that way. You'd find far more support for the return of the CCC than yet another handout program, I believe. Roosevelt's brand of socialism was far more palatable, and far better for the country, than Johnson's or Clinton's or Obama's.

[el Gusano]

Every time that capital gains tax rates have been cut, revenues have increased. Every time capital gains tax rates have been raised, revenue has dropped. Every time.

But cutting the rates only "helps the rich".

Therefore, it's good to destroy the economy to make those guys suffer for being successful!

Warren Buffet pays almost no taxes because he holds onto his stocks. Lower the capital gains rate and you'll see investments in this nation skyrocket, just as they did the last time. (Don't forget that the dividend rate was lowered to the same rate as capital gains, which removed the disincentives there, as well.)

Tell me, Cary, just how many poor people have ever hired you?

[printemps]

Nov 30, 2009 2:13:34 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Warren Buffet pays almost no taxes because he holds onto his stocks.

Warren Buffet complained in 2007 that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062602504.html

[Justin Thyme]

That tells me I need to aspire to be Warren Buffets receptionist and continue to seek implementation of the FairTax.

[el Gusano]

Lower the tax rate and he'll pay more and his receptionist less.

[daworm]

No one ever asks how did he get his rate down that low? How much did he donate to charities, for instance? How much did he invest in new businesses qualifying for tax credits? What good did the money he didn't pay in taxes do, that taxes didn't have to pay for?

[BlackFox]

Nov 30, 2009 2:13:34 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Every time that capital gains tax rates have been cut, revenues have increased. Every time capital gains tax rates have been raised, revenue has dropped. Every time.

Not over the long run. Just the opposite, in fact.

Of course revenues will go up in the year it goes into effect as people cash out in case it might go back up, but even if you leave them low, revenue eventually drops.

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

[el Gusano]

Funny, but the only thing in the past to get revenues to go down is raising the rates.

Every time.

[BlackFox]

Nov 30, 2009 14:51:08 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Funny, but the only thing in the past to get revenues to go down is raising the rates.

Every time.

I agree on that part, but let's not pretend that lowering them is the saviour of the economy either.

[el Gusano]

No.

A combination of tax cuts and spending cuts, as well as a reduction in handouts.

[printemps]

Nov 30, 2009 13:56:01 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

Lower the tax rate and he'll pay more and his receptionist less.

The eight million dollars Buffet says he pays cannot reasonably be viewed as "almost no taxes."

While a capital gains tax cut can lead investors to rush to cash in their capital gains when the lower rate first takes effect, it does not raise revenue over the long run "every time."

2008 CBO report:


"The best estimates of taxpayers' response to changes in the capital gains tax rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains--and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate."

[el Gusano]

It raises revenue every time over time. The problem is that congress rushes in to spend more, at a faster rate than revenues rise, committing us to paying that money even when we get minor dips, and also committing us to raising those expenses in the future (such as guaranteed raises) at a faster rate than the growth.

Oh, and the numbers are still looking pretty good:

56% oppose the Marxist plan, only 40% support it

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

[printemps]

Dec 14, 2009 14:51:15 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

It raises revenue every time over time.

Not even GOP economists make such a simplistic, easily disproved statement.

Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and Matthew Weinzierl, concluded that "for standard parameter values, half of a capital tax cut is self-financing."

That means half of the tax cut is not self-financing - so the overall result of the cut is a revenue loss. And those "standard parameter values" *include* spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

papers.nber.org/papers/w12103

[Scarlet&Gray]

Bush's tax cuts are still in effect. Where's the jobs? Where's the revenue?

[el Gusano]

Where were the spending cuts? Where are the cuts in government? (Hint: Both have grown much faster than revenue.)

[printemps]

They plugged spending cuts into their model to test the theory. Any of a number of possible variants could account for a decline in tax receipts. You can't do a cost estimate with static scoring.

[Scarlet&Gray]

Bush's tax cuts are still in effect. Where's the jobs? Where's the revenue?

Again a simple question even a bus driver could answer the tax cuts that the GOP'ers say generate jobs are still in effect they've only led to a 10% unemployment rate. Where are the jobs? Tell me Gus where are the tax cut generated jobs? The tax cut money did not generate jobs they put that money in the bank as fast as Cheney blew the face off of his friend. I'm all for tax cuts and jobs. But don't tell me it's raining while your pissing down my back. In fact I hope they stay in effect.

But when you cut taxes and start two wars it is the same as buying a house then quitting your job.

While President Obama has spent too much, President Bush was no fiscal conservative and his majority he had in congress helped him along the way.

Then the asshats blame President Obama for the mess they helped create. They through the TARP out to help their political donors then blamed Obama for it.

Keep watching FOX Noise they'll tell you what to think next.

[daworm]

You argue the same point Gus made... The cuts could not function as advertised because spending increased at a far greater rate (wars and bailouts were only two of the areas spending increased, but two of the largest single areas). Think of it this way, had the cuts not increased revenue, how much further in the hole would we be now than we are?

[printemps]

You mean, cutting taxes while starting two wars is fiscally unsound?

[rstewart]

Just a small clarification printemps, it was only 1 war we started, Ashcanistan started the other by refusing to hand over the murdering bastard bin Laden.

[printemps]

We should have used one-tenth of the resources spent on Iraq flushing out al Qaeda sanctuaries and killing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in the border region.

[gridbug]

Ashcanistan started the other by refusing to hand over the murdering bastard bin Laden.

Actually we started it by invading. Like they could have done anything about some Special Forces going in to do whatever they wanted.

[rstewart]

Dec 15, 2009 13:16:52 GMT -5 @gridbug said:

Ashcanistan started the other by refusing to hand over the murdering bastard bin Laden.

Actually we started it by invading. Like they could have done anything about some Special Forces going in to do whatever they wanted.

I know Bush was an asshole but he didn't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'll invade Ashcanistan". There was this event on Sept 11, 2001; you might have heard about it.

[el Gusano]

We spend $800billion annually on the UN.

We spend more on Social inSecurity than on the wars.

How about we get rid of these black holes before we start worrying about just wars?

[BlackFox]

Dec 15, 2009 13:40:12 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

We spend $800billion annually on the UN.

Where did you get that, from the Center for Pulling Numbers Out of Your Ass?

[LimitedRecourse]

"Where did you get that, from the Center for Pulling Numbers Out of Your Ass?"

Hey! That's where duke works!

[printemps]

Dec 15, 2009 13:40:12 GMT -5 el Gusano said:

We spend $800billion annually on the UN.

Show us some respect.

We spent $2.36 billion. [$598m for the regular U.N. budget and a 26% share of current-year peacekeeping operations.]