2/29 CNN/ORC Poll: Trump increases lead to almost 50%!

[umbrella39]

Didn't he already say in another thread (that probably all the people in this thread have read) that he's in top 5% of income bracket? Even if he hadn't, really, anyone with a decent job has "employer subsidized" HC. I "" it because it's really just your employer not paying you that amount and instead paying for your HC, so really, those of us who have it are paying for it ourselves. Why would the assumption automagically be he's on the Gov teat? Answer: Because the (wrong) ego stroke was needed. Anyways...

Pretty sure the confusion lies with the word subsidized. I don't consider the portion my hospital has always paid towards my healthcare as a subsidy. We DO however provide 25%, 50%, and 100% subsidies for employees for:

Family
Size Family income is less than:
1 $29,425
2 $39,825
3 $50,225
4 $60,625
5 $71,025
6 $81,425
7 $91,825
8 $102,225
9 $112,625
10 $123,025

 

[ivwshane]

Of course, my employer for a large % of it. I wouldn't have it otherwise.

Ah, so your employer subsidizes your plan. Makes sense. Can you explain to us how you know that your employers costs increased instead of your share of the costs increasing or both?

 

[Fern]

If it's an employer plan then how do you know the ACA raised your premiums?

Ah, so your employer subsidizes your plan. Makes sense. Can you explain to us how you know that your employers costs increased instead of your share of the costs increasing or both?

Back a hundred years ago or so when I was an employee we always received a report from the HR Dept that gave us that (and other) info on benefits etc.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Back a hundred years ago or so when I was an employee we always received a report from the HR Dept that gave us that (and other) info on benefits etc.

Fern

Yes. So again I'm going to ask how he knows the increases came from the ACA? Is there an entry in the HR report that says 'cost added by ACA'? I know I don't get any papers like that.

 

[DrPizza]

Again in case you missed this about Trump vs Obamacare:

Trump helped finance the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 that put in place the liberal majority that passed Obamacare and he continued to support a Democratic Senate majority after Obamacare.

Trump, registered Democrat from 2001 - 2009 wanted Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House and Harry Reid the Senate majority leader. Trump continued to support Harry Reid as majority leader in the election immediately after the passage of Obamacare.

Trump also gave $50,000 to an Obamacare architect, Rahm Emanuel, the former Obama White House chief of staff, for his campaign to become mayor of Chicago.

Are you SURE you are betting on the right horse...

I'm still holding out for Trump doing this to troll the entire Republican party. Anyyyyy day now, he's going to announce that he did all of this as a stunt to prove how evil and horrible the people who voted for what he said are. He'll denounce the KKK, and he'll denounce most of the stuff he has said. Anyyyy day now. (Then he'll point out how awesome he is for pulling off such a stunt.) Heck, even Bill Clinton said he wished he had been the one to think of having Trump run for office.

 

[ivwshane]

Back a hundred years ago or so when I was an employee we always received a report from the HR Dept that gave us that (and other) info on benefits etc.

Fern

Excellent! Being the great numbers guy that you are I'm sure I'm sure over those 100 years you would have noticed that health care costs consistently rose. The question them is; how much above those average, constant increases, did the ACA cause costs to rise?

 

[Fern]

Excellent! Being the great numbers guy that you are I'm sure I'm sure over those 100 years you would have noticed that health care costs consistently rose. The question them is; how much above those average, constant increases, did the ACA cause costs to rise?

This was your question:

explain to us how you know that your employers costs increased

I answered it for you. You know your cost increased because you receive each year (or quarter) a report displaying that cost to you.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Pretty sure the confusion lies with the word subsidized. I don't consider the portion my hospital has always paid towards my healthcare as a subsidy. We DO however provide 25%, 50%, and 100% subsidies for employees for:

Family
Size Family income is less than:
1 $29,425
2 $39,825
3 $50,225
4 $60,625
5 $71,025
6 $81,425
7 $91,825
8 $102,225
9 $112,625
10 $123,025

Personally I just consider it an employee perk, something a business does to attract and keep good employees. On one hand, I'd rather just them pay me the money they pay for my HC so I can use if for other things and not have such a Cadillac plan. On the other, it is nice knowing that basically anything that happens I'll be covered. Even lessor plans cover broken bones and kidney stones, so it'd sure be nice to just invest that much more money. The more years I can subtract from 67 the better. I enjoy my former work, but life is finite.

 

[werepossum]

But trump is going to single-handedly make the economy 3x better by starting trade wars with our biggest partners! Duh. I thought it was obvious how the phat $$$$$$ are going to rain down on my trailer.

lol Aren't they all?

Sounds like the campaign slogan for every Republican tax plan since Reagan! 😛

😀 +1

Good thing the Dems don't make empty promises, eh?

Uhmm, the tax cuts that GWB enacted were quite similar to what he promised on the campaign trail. So basically you mean 'absolutely no serious candidate except for the most recent Republican president'?

It never ceases to amaze me how many wrong things you think 'everyone knows'.

Hmm, if only there were some way to reconcile those tax cuts with "one or two major proposals". Any way at all . . . Bueller?

Bush's budgets with his tax cuts were indeed similar to what he had inherited, just a small change in overall taxation percentage-wise. And Obama too extended those tax cuts, despite vigorously campaigning against them. Again, just small changes, in spite of the fact that people like yourself remain absolutely certain they were Earth shattering.

 

[ivwshane]

This was your question:



I answered it for you. You know your cost increased because you receive each year (or quarter) a report displaying that cost to you.

Fern

This is why I have so little respect for you, outside of anything tax related.

Here is my full question you lying piece of shit:

Originally Posted by ivwshane:
Can you explain to us how you know that your employers costs increased instead of your share of the costs increasing or both?

You'll note that there is no comma or period after the words "employers costs"!

 

[Fern]

This is why I have so little respect for you, outside of anything tax related.

Here is my full question you lying piece of shit:


You'll note that there is no comma or period after the words "employers costs"!

I don't understand your confusion, although you often display reading comprehension problems.

My answer is perfectly accurate with your increased verbiage.

The annual or quarterly report should display all those details.

Fern

 

[Sonikku]

I'm still holding out for Trump doing this to troll the entire Republican party. Anyyyyy day now, he's going to announce that he did all of this as a stunt to prove how evil and horrible the people who voted for what he said are. He'll denounce the KKK, and he'll denounce most of the stuff he has said. Anyyyy day now. (Then he'll point out how awesome he is for pulling off such a stunt.) Heck, even Bill Clinton said he wished he had been the one to think of having Trump run for office.

10 months later and Roberts is swearing him in and we all wonder WTF just happened.

Then we go watch Idiocracy again. 🙁

 

[ivwshane]

I don't understand your confusion, although you often display reading comprehension problems.

My answer is perfectly accurate with your increased verbiage.

The annual or quarterly report should display all those details.

Fern

The report shows increases specifically from or caused by the ACA? I'm calling bullshit! Feel free to post the report given to you by your company and I'll accept your anecdotal evidence as fact.

 

[werepossum]

Lies from piece of shit liars like yourself get old real fast!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../repeal-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-higher-incomes/

So Obama unwillingly compromised because there was a gun to his head?

Oh, right. Every time Democrats don't get their way 100%, it's a gun to their heads.

Again in case you missed this about Trump vs Obamacare:

Trump helped finance the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 that put in place the liberal majority that passed Obamacare and he continued to support a Democratic Senate majority after Obamacare.

Trump, registered Democrat from 2001 - 2009 wanted Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House and Harry Reid the Senate majority leader. Trump continued to support Harry Reid as majority leader in the election immediately after the passage of Obamacare.

Trump also gave $50,000 to an Obamacare architect, Rahm Emanuel, the former Obama White House chief of staff, for his campaign to become mayor of Chicago.

Are you SURE you are betting on the right horse...

Most of us are quite aware of that. Appears a majority of Republicans are more angry at the Republican establishment than at the Democrats. My own solution is to vote Kasich in the primary and Libertarian in the general; other people vote for Trump.

What's bizarre is that was the obvious conclusion and yet another needed to be jumped to. "Intellectuals" LOL...

Indeed. Seems that some people cannot conceive of anything that does not come from government.

 

[ivwshane]

Is this where you get into semantics and argue that there wasn't a physical gun to Obamas head or is this where you try and claim that Obama wanting to extend unemployment benefits and in order to do that had to compromise? Or are we going to get the werepossum who wants to argue what a compromise really is? Or is this werepossum that claims Obama had more power than he actually has? Or are we going to get the werepossum who will claim this was just another example of the evil progressives manipulating the repubs to hold hostage the unemployment benefit extension in order to save the tax cuts for the rich, which both parties wanted but couldn't be passed by only one side because of optics because "both parties are the same"?

Because it's certainly obvious we aren't going to get the werepossum who is rational and capable of seeing and stating the facts.

So Obama unwillingly compromised because there was a gun to his head?

Oh, right. Every time Democrats don't get their way 100%, it's a gun to their heads.


Most of us are quite aware of that. Appears a majority of Republicans are more angry at the Republican establishment than at the Democrats. My own solution is to vote Kasich in the primary and Libertarian in the general; other people vote for Trump.


Indeed. Seems that some people cannot conceive of anything that does not come from government.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Aren't they all?


😀 +1

Good thing the Dems don't make empty promises, eh?


Hmm, if only there were some way to reconcile those tax cuts with "one or two major proposals". Any way at all . . . Bueller?

Bush's budgets with his tax cuts were indeed similar to what he had inherited, just a small change in overall taxation percentage-wise. And Obama too extended those tax cuts, despite vigorously campaigning against them. Again, just small changes, in spite of the fact that people like yourself remain absolutely certain they were Earth shattering.

Interesting! Now we know that $1.3 trillion is just a 'small change'! (They were originally supposed to cost $1.7 trillion but bad economic growth reduced that amount)

Now we know that in the future when a future democratic president says they want to increase spending by $1.7 trillion you will swoop right in and say that it's just a small change. Lol.

You know you can just admit you said something dumb you know.

 

[Fern]

The report shows increases specifically from or caused by the ACA? I'm calling bullshit! Feel free to post the report given to you by your company and I'll accept your anecdotal evidence as fact.

This is your post I quoted and responded to:

Ah, so your employer subsidizes your plan. Makes sense. Can you explain to us how you know that your employers costs increased instead of your share of the costs increasing or both?

My response continues to be perfectly accurate and I see no mention of the ACA in your post.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

Personally I just consider it an employee perk, something a business does to attract and keep good employees. On one hand, I'd rather just them pay me the money they pay for my HC so I can use if for other things and not have such a Cadillac plan. On the other, it is nice knowing that basically anything that happens I'll be covered. Even lessor plans cover broken bones and kidney stones, so it'd sure be nice to just invest that much more money. The more years I can subtract from 67 the better. I enjoy my former work, but life is finite.

I totally agree. Last year alone, my work paid out $14500 for my family for medical, dental, and vision. Usually I would have wished DAMN, would be nice to have that myself and shop around for cheap insurance and save some money for retirement... UNTIL I was hospitalized for 36 hours at a local hospital (not my own) for an emergency and it came to $39K. A few more days in-patient and that would have been a huge financial crisis for us so thank God I have the Cadiallac plan. This is why I am happy we have been somewhat forced to buy good insurance and not roll the dice.

 

[ivwshane]

This is your post I quoted and responded to:



My response continues to be perfectly accurate and I see no mention of the ACA in your post.

Fern

/facepalm


You are right fern, I didn't say anything about the ACA in that post. You would think that in a conversation about the ACA increasing costs it would have been a given that that's what was being discussed but I guess the fact everyone but you knew this means you are technically correct. Congrats, you "win" on a technicality!

Considering you've dodged the questions that specifically mentions the ACA, I can assume we won't be hearing from you anymore in this thread, right?

 

[werepossum]

Is this where you get into semantics and argue that there wasn't a physical gun to Obamas head or is this where you try and claim that Obama wanting to extend unemployment benefits and in order to do that had to compromise? Or are we going to get the werepossum who wants to argue what a compromise really is? Or is this werepossum that claims Obama had more power than he actually has? Or are we going to get the werepossum who will claim this was just another example of the evil progressives manipulating the repubs to hold hostage the unemployment benefit extension in order to save the tax cuts for the rich, which both parties wanted but couldn't be passed by only one side because of optics because "both parties are the same"?

Because it's certainly obvious we aren't going to get the werepossum who is rational and capable of seeing and stating the facts.

You're going to get the werepossum who points out that compromise is by definition an agreement to which both parties willingly consent. You will not however be able to understand him.

Interesting! Now we know that $1.3 trillion is just a 'small change'! (They were originally supposed to cost $1.7 trillion but bad economic growth reduced that amount)

Now we know that in the future when a future democratic president says they want to increase spending by $1.7 trillion you will swoop right in and say that it's just a small change. Lol.

You know you can just admit you said something dumb you know.

As a percentage of GDP, the federal government's take on individual income tax has varied from a low of 5.6% in FY1950 to a high of 9.9% (FY2000.) The numbers dropped to a low of 6.7% under Bush (FY2004) and then to a new low of 6.1% under Obama (FY2010) before jumping back up to 8.1% for FY2014. The percentage in FY2008 was actually higher than the 7.5% of FYs 1993 & 1994. So yes, outside of the outliers of FY2008 & 2009 I'd say that's a reasonably small change, unless one posits that the abnormally high numbers under Clinton are somehow the metric to match. As a percentage of GDP, the federal government's take after eight years of GWB was higher than the federal government's take after two years of Clinton, when he had a tame Democrat Congress.

The federal government's take overall has varied from a low of 14.1% (FY1950) to a high of 20.0% (FY2000.) The numbers dropped to a low of 14.6% under Bush (FY2009, mid-recession) before jumping back up to 17.5% for FY2014. FY2008 at 17.1% was actually higher than FY1993 (7.0%) and just a tad lower than the 7.5% of 1994. Outside of the outliers of FY2008 & 2009 I'd say that's also a reasonably small change.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

Now let's look at spending. The federal government's spending as a percentage of GDP has varied from a low of 15.3% (FY1950) to a high of 24.4% (FY2009.) (Numbers from the White House OMB Table 1.2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

However, outside of a tiny surplus in 1969, every single year since 1960 we've spent more than we take in, no matter which party holds Congress, no matter which party holds the White House, no matter the percentage of GDP taken in. No matter how much we take in, we consistently spend significantly more. The obvious conclusion here is that we don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[Blanky]

It's now plausible that Trump will win the presidency. I personally will relish and bathe in the tears of hillary clinton if it happens. I have already given $5M to her campaign with a contractual agreement that if they lose all of the tears she sheds on election night will be bottled and sent to me. I am also buying stock in linen companies because the number of towels sold to wipe away the tears of the left will make me very rich.

 

[feralkid]

It's now plausible that Trump will win the presidency. I personally will relish and bathe in the tears of hillary clinton if it happens. I have already given $5M to her campaign with a contractual agreement that if they lose all of the tears she sheds on election night will be bottled and sent to me. I am also buying stock in linen companies because the number of towels sold to wipe away the tears of the left will make me very rich.

Prepare to be disappointed.

 

[Darwin333]

I've never heard someone actually claim the Bush tax cuts were bad. Do you like getting money back? I know I do. This is why I think you rent a section 8 apt, you're against getting money and all for giving it away to the government. I've never debated someone this stupid outside of bernie slackers.

Let's ask everyone in the thread:
1) What do you call a person who looks out for the best interests of their family financially?
My answer: An alpha leader whose wife will never leave him.

2) What do you call a person who wants to pay more in taxes and force everyone else to pay more taxes as well while taking money away from their family and giving it to other families?
My answer: A broke motherfucker whose wife just left him for the alpha.

Guess which category you/all socialists fall into. :biggrin:

Damn, sounds like you walked in on your wife getting some strange. Or maybe he wasn't strange to you, a friend or maybe your/her boss?

 

[fskimospy]

You're going to get the werepossum who points out that compromise is by definition an agreement to which both parties willingly consent. You will not however be able to understand him.


As a percentage of GDP, the federal government's take on individual income tax has varied from a low of 5.6% in FY1950 to a high of 9.9% (FY2000.) The numbers dropped to a low of 6.7% under Bush (FY2004) and then to a new low of 6.1% under Obama (FY2010) before jumping back up to 8.1% for FY2014. The percentage in FY2008 was actually higher than the 7.5% of FYs 1993 & 1994. So yes, outside of the outliers of FY2008 & 2009 I'd say that's a reasonably small change, unless one posits that the abnormally high numbers under Clinton are somehow the metric to match. As a percentage of GDP, the federal government's take after eight years of GWB was higher than the federal government's take after two years of Clinton, when he had a tame Democrat Congress.

The federal government's take overall has varied from a low of 14.1% (FY1950) to a high of 20.0% (FY2000.) The numbers dropped to a low of 14.6% under Bush (FY2009, mid-recession) before jumping back up to 17.5% for FY2014. FY2008 at 17.1% was actually higher than FY1993 (7.0%) and just a tad lower than the 7.5% of 1994. Outside of the outliers of FY2008 & 2009 I'd say that's also a reasonably small change.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

Now let's look at spending. The federal government's spending as a percentage of GDP has varied from a low of 15.3% (FY1950) to a high of 24.4% (FY2009.) (Numbers from the White House OMB Table 1.2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

However, outside of a tiny surplus in 1969, every single year since 1960 we've spent more than we take in, no matter which party holds Congress, no matter which party holds the White House, no matter the percentage of GDP taken in. No matter how much we take in, we consistently spend significantly more. The obvious conclusion here is that we don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Why are you so averse to admitting you said something stupid?

 

[alien42]

It's now plausible that Trump will win the presidency. I personally will relish and bathe in the tears of hillary clinton if it happens. I have already given $5M to her campaign with a contractual agreement that if they lose all of the tears she sheds on election night will be bottled and sent to me. I am also buying stock in linen companies because the number of towels sold to wipe away the tears of the left will make me very rich.

sounds like desperation and panic to me. it's OK, you can accept that fact that the GOP has cannibalized itself and that Donald Trump, who is not a conservative Republican, will ensure a Hillary victory.

can you say Madam President?