Out Of Their Anti Tax Minds

[Jhhnn]

The people who make such charges forget that when Democrats took control of congress in 2007 the economy was in good shape and only crashed after they had been placed in charge.

Now you're arguing just to argue, have been for some while. You're resorting to saying things that even you know to be false.

Fine shape you say? Like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ummm, no. There's a huge difference between a deduction and a credit.

Deduction = government not taking your money. ALL deductions are to incent certain behavior, but it is not spending in any way shape or form.
Credit = government cutting you a check.

Actually....not really. And in practice they are the same. You use dedections and credits for the same purpose, to lower your tax bill.

And if you really want to argue semantics, then deductions also lead to checks being cut.

Start with the premise that it's your money to begin with and it all becomes stunningly clear. "letting" me keep my hard earned money is not spending.

Maye if you are explaining the premise to a 5 year old.

Your income, much as you might not like to think it does, does not exist in a vacuum.

It is the result of a safe, civilized, organized, and filled with infrastructure society which has inherent costs and for which it is your patriotic duty to pay.

 

[werepossum]

Hogwash. SS is the biggest payroll tax by far, and has contributed over $2.5T to the treasury since 1983 in return for govt bonds. Those funds were necessarily spent for whatever purpose the Congress & Executive deemed appropriate.

Yeh, sure, other payroll taxes are often earmarked for certain necessary activities, but they just free up other revenues for whatever purpose the taxing authority deems appropriate. With the exception of SS, payroll taxes generally don't cover the complete cost of the programs they support, but rather supplement other appropriations.

It's the same for any earmarked revenue source. The Colorado Lottery, for example, was originally earmarked for wildlife. When the revenue started rolling in, other appropriations were slashed so that those funds were freed up for whatever...

If the funds from the "Tobacco Settlement" tax, for example, were really used to offset the medical costs of smoking, as stated up front, then smokers would have a really nice supplemental healthcare package, but they don't, obviously.

Reality- it's something Conservatives try to ignore when it's inconvenient to whatever argument they're making at the time...

It's like their current "Cut, cut, cut!" mentality- put more people out of work to "grow the economy"... then Blame Obama! when it has exactly the opposite effect.

Payroll taxes are legally restricted for special purposes and may be used only for those purposes. This is the law, and has been since the eighties when Reagan made an issue of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid funds being moved into the general fund and spent. When there are excess revenues in any of these programs, that money has to be set aside; this is Al Gore's lock box. The question then becomes what to do with those funds. If stored in cash, that money is both removed from circulation, and devalues due to inflation. If invested in the market, that money will grow, but might be lower when it's actually needed due to the market's fluctuations. Therefore the excess revenue in each fund is spent of government securities. This keeps overall outside federal government debt down, as otherwise the federal government would have to borrow that money from other individuals or entities through bond sales. The revenue from payroll taxes cannot legally be spent on any other need; only the proceeds from securities sold to the trust funds may be used. Thus the trust funds (lock boxes if you will) are filled with nothing but IOUs, but from a legal standpoint all the revenue raised by payroll taxes is still allocated ONLY to those funds. An analogy would be your neighbor; he cannot spend your money, but he can borrow from you and spend the borrowed money with the promise of paying back that money.

This is vastly different from other programs which politicians promise will be used only for one thing. Politicians' promises are worth squat; this is the law. Any American who votes or has the least pretension of being above the level of a moron needs to know this.

 

[hal2kilo]

You aren't getting a simple point. How many times do you want it repeated?

Democrats had the votes to pass a good, public option plan. The House DID pass it; the Senate had over 50 votes for it, all they needed.

The reasons they couldn't get it passed, and had to 'gut it' to get more votes to pass something, are because the *Republicans* abused the filibuster to steal veto power; and because just over 40 Senators - a handful of Democrats and Every Republicans - refused to vote for the better version either without gutting it or even after that.

That's a massive share of the blame, the large majority, for REPUBLICANS in why the bill had to be gutted. The handful of Democrats had no power if a handful of Republicans voted for it. The handful of Democrats and the minority party of Republicans had no power if the rules were followed for a vote; the Democrats had over 50 votes.




Stop lying. The handful of Democrats and all Republicans who voted against the better bill are responsible for it not passing, and being gutted to get the extra votes that were needed because of the filibuster being abused. Even if they weren't 'allowed to participate in drafting the bill', they're responsible for their vote on it, and that's hardly the truth. Remember all the concessions made to Republican demands? Of course you don't, because that's not convenient for your distorting.




The topic is support for a public option - you tried to sneak in a change from that - which you say nothing about - to single payer.

You're even wrong about that - though it's a policy where he earlier supported it, and then backed off that support.





The House passed a public option. Over 50 Senators supported a public option, enough to pass it except for Republicans abusing the filibuster. Obama supported a public option.

The blame it almost entirely on Republicans for opposing it and abusing the filibuster, and the small bit left among politicians is on a handful of Democrats.

Your claim Republicans have 'no blame' is false.

Forget it Craig. Prof John is either willfully ignorant about the power of the filibuster being used to not allow a vote on a bill or ammendment or he's basically a dumb ass.

 

[spidey07]

Forget it Craig. Prof John is either willfully ignorant about the power of the filibuster being used to not allow a vote on a bill or ammendment or he's basically a dumb ass.

You're forgetting the dems had a filibuster proof majority until the historic election of Scott Brown. Revisionist history much or willful ignorance?

It was the very actions of democrats passing bills The People didn't want, with no way of stopping them, ramming it down their throats, that caused the other historic election, of 2010. Next up, 2012.

 

[Craig234]

You're forgetting the dems had a filibuster proof majority until the historic election of Scott Brown. Revisionist history much or willful ignorance?

The only revisionist history here is yours.

If Democrats had members who voted with Republicans, they didn't have that 'filibuster-proof majority', and it does nothing to address the responsibility for Republicans' bad votes.

Of course, you count, say, Joe Lieberman the Democrat - who happened to be John McCain's first choice for his Republican running mate until just before the nomination.

Republicans are responsible for their votes, despite your attempts to evade that.

 

[spidey07]

The only revisionist history here is yours.

If Democrats had members who voted with Republicans, they didn't have that 'filibuster-proof majority', and it does nothing to address the responsibility for Republicans' bad votes.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=democrat+filibuster+proof+majority

I guess you have some other version of history? Don't you remember Scott Brown's historic election and his slogan "let me be the 41st vote to stop the democrats?" Why do you think he won? To be that 41st vote to break the filibuster proof majority.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=democrat+filibuster+proof+majority

I guess you have some other version of history? Don't you remember Scott Brown's historic election and his slogan "let me be the 41st vote to stop the democrats?" Why do you think he won? To be that 41st vote to break the filibuster proof majority.

Large compromises had already been made to get 60 before Brown. More were made after.

 

[thraashman]

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=democrat+filibuster+proof+majority

I guess you have some other version of history? Don't you remember Scott Brown's historic election and his slogan "let me be the 41st vote to stop the democrats?" Why do you think he won? To be that 41st vote to break the filibuster proof majority.

Why is it that Republicans seem to think that having members of their party being completely unable to think for themselves is a good thing? Democrats are individuals, thinkers, human beings. Republicans are a mass of cancerous cells that speak in one unthinking voice. Also, the reason Scott Brown won had very little to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act, polls at the time still had it as popular. He won because his opponent sucked and pissed off the constituency with her idiot mouth.

Stop trying to pretend you know anything about ... anything. It's simply not true, everyone knows this.

 

[brencat]

Also, the reason Scott Brown won had very little to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act, polls at the time still had it as popular. He won because his opponent sucked and pissed off the constituency with her idiot mouth.

What you say is true, but the fact is that MA has a fairly center-left constituency (although the media like to bill it as *mostly* independent) like NJ where I live and it was still a stunning upset. I remember the campaign, and I remember a lot of people worried about the Dems having a fillibuster proof majority. It was a huge relief when SB won, not only to torpedo the healthcare bill but to water down other things...like Cap & Tax too.

The fact is, many people want both sides in check. That means divided govt is the preferred outcome for most voters, especially after seeing both sides have full control in recent years. They can't help themselves and let their loonies on both sides go hog wild. The American people just aren't with the extremes of EITHER party because they are both too fvcked up.

 

[werepossum]

The only revisionist history here is yours.

If Democrats had members who voted with Republicans, they didn't have that 'filibuster-proof majority', and it does nothing to address the responsibility for Republicans' bad votes.

Of course, you count, say, Joe Lieberman the Democrat - who happened to be John McCain's first choice for his Republican running mate until just before the nomination.

Republicans are responsible for their votes, despite your attempts to evade that.

Republicans are quite willing to be responsible for their votes against Obamacare, as those are among their more popular votes.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans are quite willing to be responsible for their votes against Obamacare, as those are among their more popular votes.

Man is that sad. Opposition to the health care bill only polls about 5 points ahead of support for it. If that's one of your more popular positions, you have a lot of work to do.

 

[ProfJohn]

212 Republicans are about about 85% of the no votes and the blame.

34 Democrats are about 15% of the no votes and the blame. Not 100% as you say.

You truly are an idiot.

In the house majority has absolute rule. The minority has NO power at all.
The Democrats could have passed any healthcare law they wanted, but had to settle a compromise because members of their own party opposed the furthest left ideas.

BTW Obama opposed single payer.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's a terrific question. I'm not sure if everybody could hear it, but the gist of the question is, why have we not been looking at a single-payer plan as the way to go?
As many of you know, in many countries, most industrialized advanced countries, they have some version of what's called a single-payer plan. And what that means is essentially that the government is the insurer. The government may not necessarily hire the doctors or the hospitals -- a lot of those may still be privately operated -- but the government is the insurer for everybody. And Medicare is actually a single-payer plan that we have in place, but we only have it in place for our older Americans.
Now, in a lot of those countries, a single-payer plan works pretty well and you eliminate, as Scott, I think it was, said, you eliminate private insurers, you don't have the administrative costs and the bureaucracy and so forth.
Here's the problem, is that the way our health care system evolved in the United States, it evolved based on employers providing health insurance to their employees through private insurers. And so that's still the way that the vast majority of you get your insurance. And for us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive. And my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free market system.
I think that we can regulate the insurance companies effectively; make sure that they're not playing games with people because of preexisting conditions; that they're not charging wildly different rates to people based on where they live or what their age is; that they're not dropping people for coverage unnecessarily; that we have a public option that's available to provide competition and choice to the American people, and to keep the insurers honest; and that we can provide a system in which we are, over the long term, driving down administrative costs, and making sure that people are getting the best possible care at a lower price.
But I recognize that there are lot of people who are passionate -- they look at France or some of these other systems and they say, well, why can't we just do that? Well, the answer is, is that this is one-sixth of our economy, and we're not suddenly just going to completely upend the system. We want to build on what works about the system and fix what's broken about the system. And that's what I think Congress is committed to doing, and I'm committed to working with them to make it happen. Okay?

I suppose it is the Republicans fault for that too?

 

[ProfJohn]

Stop lying.

A majority of Americans SUPPORTED the healthcare plan Republican opposed, with a public option.

Evidence of such support?

Polls that directly prove that support.

Pasting a politicians campaign platform that contains single payer is not proof that people back that specific item.

Bush's 2004 platform included making his tax cut permanent. Since he won that must mean that Americans supported that idea, right?

 

[werepossum]

Man is that sad. Opposition to the health care bill only polls about 5 points ahead of support for it. If that's one of your more popular positions, you have a lot of work to do.

Any position with really broad support will be adopted by both parties, as their first and most dear interest is acquiring and maintaining political power. Therefore any identifiable position is unlikely to be broadly popular, else the opposing party would at least pay lip service to it and attempt to co-opt it.

 

[ProfJohn]

The only revisionist history here is yours.

If Democrats had members who voted with Republicans, they didn't have that 'filibuster-proof majority', and it does nothing to address the responsibility for Republicans' bad votes.

Of course, you count, say, Joe Lieberman the Democrat - who happened to be John McCain's first choice for his Republican running mate until just before the nomination.

Republicans are responsible for their votes, despite your attempts to evade that.

So you admit that it was the fault of these Democrats?

All you had to do with convince your own party members and you could have had anything you wanted. ANYTHING!

And yet you want to blame the Republicans?? Idiocy.

 

[ProfJohn]

Man is that sad. Opposition to the health care bill only polls about 5 points ahead of support for it. If that's one of your more popular positions, you have a lot of work to do.

The majority of Americans want the bill repealed.
Last poll was 53% repeal 39% oppose

Why are the Democrats standing in the way of the wishes of the American people?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

When the bill was passed the majority of Americans opposed it as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

At the time of the Senate vote 50% of Americans opposed it and only 40% supported it.

 

[fskimospy]

The majority of Americans want the bill repealed.
Last poll was 53% repeal 39% oppose

Why are the Democrats standing in the way of the wishes of the American people?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

When the bill was passed the majority of Americans opposed it as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

At the time of the Senate vote 50% of Americans opposed it and only 40% supported it.

You really want to play this game? Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of raising taxes on the rich. Why are the Republicans standing in the way of the wishes of the American people?

We can do this all day.

Rasmussen is a Republican leading pollster, everyone knows this. Most show it to be considerably closer than he does.

 

[fskimospy]

Any position with really broad support will be adopted by both parties, as their first and most dear interest is acquiring and maintaining political power. Therefore any identifiable position is unlikely to be broadly popular, else the opposing party would at least pay lip service to it and attempt to co-opt it.

Untrue. Raising taxes on the rich is overwhelmingly popular, and yet the Republicans steadfastly oppose it. I'm sure there are some Democratic positions that are similar, yet they still support them. There's quite a bit more to it than just popularity.

 

[werepossum]

Untrue. Raising taxes on the rich is overwhelmingly popular, and yet the Republicans steadfastly oppose it. I'm sure there are some Democratic positions that are similar, yet they still support them. There's quite a bit more to it than just popularity.

Point taken. There are a few core issues on which the parties take differing stands.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We're pretty much screwed anyway since whether we ignore the debt ceiling or not we're committing ourselves to spend what we cannot afford. There aren't enough "rich" people to tax, so the definition of wealthy will steadily come down and even so it will still not be enough. The question is how long will it be before the bulwark collapses. Won't be for awhile, but I'm concerned for my kids who will no doubt be "wealthy" at some point no matter what they earn.

 

[Fern]

You aren't getting a simple point. How many times do you want it repeated?

Democrats had the votes to pass a good, public option plan. The House DID pass it; the Senate had over 50 votes for it, all they needed.

The reasons they couldn't get it passed, and had to 'gut it' to get more votes to pass something, are because the *Republicans* abused the filibuster to steal veto power; and because just over 40 Senators - a handful of Democrats and Every Republicans - refused to vote for the better version either without gutting it or even after that.

That's a massive share of the blame, the large majority, for REPUBLICANS in why the bill had to be gutted. The handful of Democrats had no power if a handful of Republicans voted for it. The handful of Democrats and the minority party of Republicans had no power if the rules were followed for a vote; the Democrats had over 50 votes.

See bolded part etc.

Utter nonsense. A complete revision of history:

Key Dems: The public option is dead
By Jared Allen - 02/23/10 01:47 PM ET

After months on life support, the public option died Tuesday.

The White House and House leaders on Tuesday pronounced the government-run health program dead even as some Democratic senators continued their effort to resurrect it.

The move is a clear indication that President Barack Obama and leading Democrats are wary of another intra-party battle on the public option. Last year, Democrats lost valuable time debating the issue, leading to many missed deadlines.

The number of Senate Democrats voicing support for including a public option in the final healthcare bill — and for using reconciliation rules to pass that legislation in the Senate — grew to 25 Tuesday. But that’s still 25 votes short, with little to no chance of reaching the necessary 50.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83153-hoyer-public-option-is-likely-dead

Seriously Craig234?

Jeebus, you have no shame.

Fern

 

[Fern]

National health care reform has been a primary Democratic campaign platform for half a century now. It was specifically mentioned by Obama on any number of occasions.

Clearly in 1993 Republicans didn't believe it should be left up to the states, it was a federal plan, so they obviously had no problem with not leaving it up to the states then.

What's really happened is that the Republican party has become radicalized over the last 30 years. A health care bill that is extremely similar to the Republican health care plan from the 1990s is now considered so liberal by the rank and file members that it is a fascist bill that destroys freedom and endangers the American way of life.

I mean think about that. Anyone who supports a bill that was their own party's plan from 20 years ago is considered a communist. That's sheer insanity.

The so-called "Republican plan" back in 1993 didn't have Republican support even then.

A few Repubs put it together in competition with Hillary's plan, but it never had Repub support despite what the Left continually asserts. To continually claim otherwise, and then feign surprise the Repubs refuse to support it now is flat-out disengenuious.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You talk like the Republicans didn't have votes.

You fail to hold them accountable. The healthcare policy was far weaker because there weren't enough votes to pass a stronger one. That's the fault of *everyone* who failed to support a stronger bill - of both parties - but guess which party had a hell of a lot more people who fall into that group (hint: 100% of Republicans).

If a few Republicans had supported a stronger bill, Obama could have told the bad Democrats who pushed for gutting the bill to get lost. So they're BOTH guilty.

Your claim Republicans have no role in the blame is false.

Edit: let's not forget - thanks tweaker2 - that Democrats HAD the votes to pass a stronger bill by the margin the law requires, a majority. It was the Republicans abusing the filibuster to steal a veto that allowed gutting the bill.

What a bunch of horse crap.

I've already demonstrated you lie when you say the Dems had majority support for the public option.

And you want to blame this crappy HC on the Repubs? That's utter BULL, it's the Dems bill, they have FULL ownership of it. PERIOD.

No public option? Yeah, I can agree that the Repubs (along with half the Dems in the senate) didn't support it. Why the hell would they? That's a lib's wet dream, why would the Repubs support it?

And you public option types have never once explained what you're plan is for wiping out the HC insurance industry. Who reimburses all the shareholders for their billion $ losses? Who makes up for loss of value in peoples' retirement plans for that worthless stock? What happens to the thousands of people now out of work? Etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Hogwash. SS is the biggest payroll tax by far, and has contributed over $2.5T to the treasury since 1983 in return for govt bonds. Those funds were necessarily spent for whatever purpose the Congress & Executive deemed appropriate.

Nope. Flat-out wrong.

Social Security taxes go for SS (Medicare included). It's that simple.

Excess SS funds are invested in T-bonds. Those funds obtained from the bonds are available general purpose. But that is mighty damn different from what you're claiming.

Yeh, sure, other payroll taxes are often earmarked for certain necessary activities, but they just free up other revenues for whatever purpose the taxing authority deems appropriate. With the exception of SS, payroll taxes generally don't cover the complete cost of the programs they support, but rather supplement other appropriations.

Let me help you out here. You don't seem familiar with payroll taxes.

Payroll taxes consist of following:

(1) Federal and state income tax withholding. Has nothing to do with this discussion.

(2) SS. As I've explained above they are used SOLEY for the SS program (retirement, disability, medicare etc)

(3) Unemplyment insurance. The vast bulk are paid to the state. What each state does with it is up to that state. I don't know if each state segregates these funds or not (my state does). A small amount is paid to the feds. The feds, IIRC, do not segregate these funds. No real need to since they give the funds back to states anyway.

There aren't any "other payroll taxes" .

Fern