Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[bytor2112]

Just in case: No I didn't live in US during Reagan years plus I'm too young anyway. Also there's a ton of textbooks and articles to explain why supply side is discredited -supply side as Reagan practiced- so you are free to go and study this anywhere. My comment to you is that A) GOP has never done much good and Reagan sold you a lemon.

Your view and understanding of history and economics is skewed.

Supply side hasn't been discredited...debated perhaps, but not discredited. Reagan was a great President and the economy soared under his leadership....spending was huge as well, BUT, we were involved in defeating an evil empire and ending the cold war.

Why you continue to explain supply side to me is a bit irritating. I own two businesses and understand economics very well. The problem that you state is correct and incorrect. The government, as I stated must cooperate by reducing spending....which rarely ever occurs. Secondly, your comments oversimplifies. The increase in revenues that occur has to do with job creation. Lowering taxes from 70% to 28% ( I believe) on the top marginal tax rate caused higher consumer spending and created more jobs.

The broader point is the government wastes money...Democrat and Republican. Reducing taxes ALWAYS benefits the economy and ALWAYS benefits the tax payer. The government doesn't create jobs....they stifle economic growth. More taxes just means more deficit spending....more waste and less prosperity. Raising taxes does not and cannot create jobs and stimulate the economy. If you want to talk about voodoo economics.......let's chat about what Obama is doing.

Edited November 3, 2009 by bytor2112

[Charlyc]

Supply side hasn't been discredited...debated perhaps, but not discredited. Reagan was a great President and the economy soared under his leadership....spending was huge as well, BUT, we were involved in defeating an evil empire and ending the cold war..

Hmmmm....I'd say that's another myth the GOP thrives on. And Pt McKay and Benson would agree. Benson actually quoted McKay in general conference prophesying that THE PEOPLE of Russia would bring down communism, and so it happened. Had both Gorbachev and the russian people not changed you'd still be shadowing soviet subs in the Atlantic. (you'd probably have to go to Crowther's 'Prophecy, Key to the Future' because lds.org doesn't seem to go back that far; if you don't have it then I can wright it out here).

Now this is part of what I can't understand about US saints. They seem to be so involved with the right and so pro-GOP that they will completely forget or ignore a McKay prophesy concerning Communism and credit its downfall to Reagan.

the economy soared under his leadership

Sure when you grant tax cuts, add debt to replace those cuts, and then add more debt to grow government, off course the economy will grow, but who pays that debt? And Obama? well, he's in lala land with his deficit projections.

About that simple explanation, it was as simple as it could possibly be. But you see the expansion that results from tax cuts, but not the debt nor the flaw in its fundamental premise. So we need to agree to disagree cause we aren't getting anywhere with this debate and I don't want to irritate you anymore than was necessary

[bytor2112]

Sure when you grant tax cuts, add debt to replace those cuts, and then add more debt to grow government, off course the economy will grow, but who pays that debt? And Obama? well, he's in lala land with his deficit projections.

About that simple explanation, it was as simple as it could possibly be. But you see the expansion that results from tax cuts, but not the debt nor the flaw in its fundamental premise. So we need to agree to disagree cause we aren't getting anywhere with this debate and I don't want to irritate you anymore than was necessary

The flaw...the debt .....is from fiscally irresponsible politicians. I do see that...as I stated twice.....that the government must do their part. If you want to say that that supply side is iffy at best because of the unwillingness of politicians to reduce wasteful spending, then I concur. The best laid plans of mice and men.........:)

Edited November 4, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytebear]

The goal of the government should be to encourage as much competition as possible. Any legislation that regulates business should be about allowing other companies to compete. It should not be about moving from a private monopoly to a public one. All these issues of unfair business practices will iron themselves out naturally once competition exists. Routine medical care should be as common and routine as cell phone plans. Even the poorest of the poor can afford a cell phone.

If you are too old to remember Reagan then you are too old to remember Ma Bell. That was when the government ran the telephone service. We all had a big black phone that ran directly into the wall. No voice mail, no answering machines, caller ID, no call waiting, no three way calling. Just a big black box that rang and if you weren't home you didn't get the call, and if they were on the line, all you got was a busy signal. Yep, those were the good old days of government regulated monopolies.

Edited November 4, 2009 by bytebear

[FunkyTown]

Discredited by? Debated about perhaps. Did you live in America during the Reagan years? Never enough real money????? To compensate for tax cuts????? Your kidding right? You are correct in your assertion that it works in conjunction with a reduction in government spending and I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

Plus, in Reagan's defense, the time that he was living in was very different. The economic collapse of the US manufacturing base in the 70s was reversed by the cold war expenditures. Sure, the national debt tripled in that time, but people no longer had to live in fear of nuclear holocaust.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm frankly grateful that Reagan was around at the time. Duck and cover is not something I would have wanted to grow up learning.

Although I'd have to point out that during Clinton's time, the economy was booming again. You might think it had nothing to do with him, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[rameumptom]

He converted you into the worlds largest debtor -that's largest ever in history. You can't see that?

What you are missing here is the basic arithmetic that makes supply-side voodoo.

Reagan's overall plan would have worked. What didn't work was that the Democrats and moderate Republicans refused to also do cuts in programming to match the tax cuts.

Reagan prioritized his battles, knowing that to defeat the USSR was more important than a temporary deficit. So he took the tax cuts, which fixed the economy and led to the longest quality growth economy in USA history (stretching about 20 years), and defeated the Eastern Bloc.

I recall him continually railing on Congress for giving him huge tax bills to sign. He brought the bills in on a couple occasions to display before the media. Yet, he knew he had to choose his battles if he wished to win any of them.

What would Reagan do today? He probably would fix the deficit and economy, as a bigger threat than anything else out there right now.

The problem with Republicans is they didn't grasp the Gipper's entire world view. They latched onto tax cuts and nothing else. Dubya's tax cuts with huge budget increases is an example of taking only a portion of the program and pretending it would fix everything, when frugal cuts were also needed.

The Gipper solved the Social Security problems of his day. Today's Republicans and Democrats keep kicking it down the road until it is now running a deficit. Reagan probably would have found quality free market methods to help the environment (he was an environmentalist) and health care that would not require a new government program.

Just because Reagan didn't get everything he wanted, doesn't mean he didn't do good. He wasn't king. He was a president who had to work with Congress, just as Obama is doing today.

[talisyn]

The comment about the poorest of the poor owning cell phones caught my eye....has anyone seriously checked out cell phones lately? For a mere $45/month you can get a really cool phone with no down payment as long as you sign a contract for 2 years. Breaking that down, the 2 year phone will cost about $1080 total. My meh insurance costs me about $2800/year. Yeah, poor people can afford cell phones a whole lot easier than insurance. Which brings me to rent-to-own furniture companies and check cashing places, but wow that's a whole other thread.

I have a concern, and I am sincere (really!). Listening to the rhetoric about President Obama being a fascist and socialist and communist and Muslim has been entertaining in a 'where's the kitchen sink' sort of way, and yesterday that sink was thrown when I read this CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - GOP congresswoman says health care bill scarier than terrorism « - Blogs from CNN.com Kudos to Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina for making up such a great soundbite, but now that the Dems have been labeled domestic terrorists where do the Reps go from here? Kitten eaters? Baby killers? Oh wait that one has been done already...

Hyperbole is a finite tool, to be used sparingly and with great wisdom. Not like a couple of 5 year old boys who discovered potty humor.

[bytor2112]

The comment about the poorest of the poor owning cell phones caught my eye....has anyone seriously checked out cell phones lately? For a mere $45/month you can get a really cool phone with no down payment as long as you sign a contract for 2 years. Breaking that down, the 2 year phone will cost about $1080 total. My meh insurance costs me about $2800/year. Yeah, poor people can afford cell phones a whole lot easier than insurance. Which brings me to rent-to-own furniture companies and check cashing places, but wow that's a whole other thread.

I have a concern, and I am sincere (really!). Listening to the rhetoric about President Obama being a fascist and socialist and communist and Muslim has been entertaining in a 'where's the kitchen sink' sort of way, and yesterday that sink was thrown when I read this CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - GOP congresswoman says health care bill scarier than terrorism « - Blogs from CNN.com Kudos to Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina for making up such a great soundbite, but now that the Dems have been labeled domestic terrorists where do the Reps go from here? Kitten eaters? Baby killers? Oh wait that one has been done already...

Hyperbole is a finite tool, to be used sparingly and with great wisdom. Not like a couple of 5 year old boys who discovered potty humor.

Sounds like she took a page from the Democrats playbook.....BUT, saying that the health care bill is scarier than terrorists is NOT referring to Dems as domestic terrorists. Nice try though.

[talisyn]

Sounds like she took a page from the Democrats playbook.....BUT, saying that the health care bill is scarier than terrorists is NOT referring to Dems as domestic terrorists. Nice try though.

It's not a try, Bytor, it's what she actually said

A Republican congresswoman said Monday on the House floor that she believes Americans have more to fear from the Democrats' health care bill "than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said people in her home district tell her they are frightened of the health care bill expected to be debated by the House as soon as this week.

"I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful," Foxx said, "And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room - this very room - and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill.

"I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

My apologies. She wasn't calling the people who want the health care bill to pass (mostly, nay, all, democrats) domestic terrorists. She was calling them worse than terrorists. These sort of mistakes in hyperbole happen a lot, it seems.

Edited November 4, 2009 by talisyn

[Guest]

The comment about the poorest of the poor owning cell phones caught my eye....has anyone seriously checked out cell phones lately? For a mere $45/month you can get a really cool phone with no down payment as long as you sign a contract for 2 years. Breaking that down, the 2 year phone will cost about $1080 total. My meh insurance costs me about $2800/year. Yeah, poor people can afford cell phones a whole lot easier than insurance. Which brings me to rent-to-own furniture companies and check cashing places, but wow that's a whole other thread.

Okay, let me get this straight... you are saying that you would rather put $45/mo on your cellphone than put it towards your healthcare?

How about that $25/mo cable, is that above your healthcare too, since, as you said, it is cheap...

How about that DVD rental and that Xbox? Those are cheap too...

How about this:

Put $200 on a car/car insurance than put it towards your healthcare?

Put $1000 on mortgage/rent than putting it towards your healthcare?

What else goes at a higher priority than your healthcare?

Maybe if people learn that you are responsible for your own health your priority will switch over so that you CAN afford healthcare but you can't afford a car... you know, just like you put tithing above everything else so everything just kinda have to get struck out of the budget. Or like you put tax dollars above even tithing - it is so high priority it gets taken away before you even know you had the money...

How about that? Will you then be able to afford healthcare?

My uncle in the Philippines just had brain surgery yesterday. There is no such thing as health insurance for them. Guess what, the whole family had a meeting - that means, everybody even remotely blood related to him or even those not related who care about him - and we all pledged a certain amount of money and we were able to cover the entire surgery... WITHOUT INSURANCE. So yeah, they won't have a car, they're probably going to sell the house, but who cares as long as my uncle gets a fighting chance. That's health CARE.

Oh wait... if people start thinking they can't afford a car because they have to buy health insurance, then they'll probably just go ask the government to give them a car. So yeah, that probably won't work. My bad.

[talisyn]

Actually, what I was saying was it's easier to pay $540/year for a cell phone than $2800/year for health insurance. $25/ month for cable is $300/year. Tack that onto the cell bill, $840/year. That's still $2000 short. Auto insurance is mandatory in every state (I believe) so that isn't going to be counted against the total. Rent/mortgage...I suppose someone could stop paying these, but if they did they'd be homeless..which would solve the cable part. There we go, problem solved. If all the people paying their cell phones and cable bills (at about $840/year, remember) were homeless they could then pay for health insurance. Assuming they could keep their job because employers tend to dislike smelly employees (no home, no shower).

I'm glad your family banded together for your uncle.

But I can't resist saying universal health care paid with taxes would have made things easier.

Edited November 4, 2009 by talisyn
you're is not the same as your ><

[Guest]

Actually, what I was saying was it's easier to pay $540/year for a cell phone than $2800/year for health insurance. $25/ month for cable is $300/year. Tack that onto the cell bill, $840/year. That's still $2000 short. Auto insurance is mandatory in every state (I believe) so that isn't going to be counted against the total. Rent/mortgage...I suppose someone could stop paying these, but if they did they'd be homeless..which would solve the cable part. There we go, problem solved. If all the people paying their cell phones and cable bills (at about $840/year, remember) were homeless they could then pay for health insurance. Assuming they could keep their job because employers tend to dislike smelly employees (no home, no shower).

I'm glad your family banded together for your uncle.

But I can't resist saying universal health care paid with taxes would have made things easier.

Talisyn, what USA considers poor makes $15,000/yr. $2800/yr is chump change compared. So yeah, you can manipulate the numbers all you want. My only point is - PRIORITIES.

IF the politicians would have offered Universal Healthcare instead of tacking 200 pesos on their candidate's ballot at the voting booth (the current vote-buying practice used by several politicians), then yeah, my uncle would still have been dead because he is 70 years old and the government does not have the money to pay for it. At least 200 pesos vote-buying is much cheaper for the taxpayers than brain surgery coverage. And it is very obvious WHO is doing it and what the money is for...

[talisyn]

Talisyn, what USA considers poor makes $15,000/yr. $2800/yr is chump change compared. So yeah, you can manipulate the numbers all you want. My only point is - PRIORITIES.

IF the politicians would have offered Universal Healthcare instead of tacking 200 pesos on their candidate's ballot at the voting booth (the current vote-buying practice used by several politicians), then yeah, my uncle would still have been dead because he is 70 years old and the government does not have the money to pay for it. At least 200 pesos vote-buying is much cheaper for the taxpayers than brain surgery coverage. And it is very obvious WHO is doing it and what the money is for...

I'm sorry you consider $2,800/year chump change, I assure you that it leaves a huge hole in my wallet.

You get 200 pesos to vote for a candidate? In the USA we pay our politicians to take us for a ride

How is your uncle?

[Guest]

I'm sorry you consider $2,800/year chump change, I assure you that it leaves a huge hole in my wallet.

You get 200 pesos to vote for a candidate? In the USA we pay our politicians to take us for a ride

How is your uncle?

Talisyn, you don't think your health is worth $2,800/year? How much do you think it is worth to you? I think $2,800/year is chump change compared to $8,000/year of housing that a "poor" American is willing to pay for a roof over their heads.

Actually, in the USA you get to pay 24% of tax so that your politicians can buy votes using terms such as tax break for the... <name your group here>... I mean - not only do you get tax breaks for the "rich" or tax breaks for the "poor" you even got tax breaks for rum runners in your last Stimulus package!

My uncle is still touch-and-go. My brother is a neuro surgeon. He is in the best hands possible. Everything else is up to God. If he makes it past 5 days, then he has a 90% survival rate. Right now, he's at 20%.

[talisyn]

Speaking of people not living in houses... Dad lost his job, so this family lives on the road - TODAY People

What I find tragically funny about this is umpteen years ago my incredibly poor family lived in a bus in the middle of a desert. And now people are going to make it trendy. *sigh*

My family's health is worth $2,800/year. I wish it had more buying power than 2 dr. visits per year and a yearly physical, though. You've lived in the USA, right? So you know what prices are over here. Food, clothing, and shelter are considered necessities. I don't see why people should be condemned for paying rent or mortgages.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for your uncle.

For clarification and accuracy, this is where my family lived for about 8 years Slab City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slab City which is Located in or near Salton Sea, California was visted by the Traveling Webmaster on 19 March 2004. Pictures of the visit are available.

Suffice to say, for a middle/high school kid it was heck on Earth

Edited November 4, 2009 by talisyn

[Guest]

P.S.

For a politician, here's the beauty of universal healthcare. EVERYBODY needs it. Not a single person will tell you they don't need healthcare. I mean, Social Security only directly impacts seniors -a smaller group compared to the rest of the population. Illegal immigration only directly impacts the hispanic voters, most specifically Mexican voters. A smaller group as well. But healthcare, man, that's one giant vote-buying tool there! I mean, once that's installed, any other politician who fights to eliminate it will lose every single time because Americans will not dare take over the responsibility of paying for their own health. It becomes part of the "directly deducted from the paycheck" money that people do not feel is coming out of their wallets. I mean, it's even bigger than welfare - that only directly impacts those who find themselves in dire straits - which is a smaller segment of the population as well. It will be like education - where it will always be a source of vote-buying (a.k.a NEA) bloc regardless of how shoddy the quality of it is! It's MAJOR. Like a lifetime security for a Congressman or Senator...

[Guest]

Speaking of people not living in houses... Dad lost his job, so this family lives on the road - TODAY People

What I find tragically funny about this is umpteen years ago my incredibly poor family lived in a bus in the middle of a desert. And now people are going to make it trendy. *sigh*

My family's health is worth $2,800/year. I wish it had more buying power than 2 dr. visits per year and a yearly physical, though. You've lived in the USA, right? So you know what prices are over here. Food, clothing, and shelter are considered necessities. I don't see why people should be condemned for paying rent or mortgages.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for your uncle.

I COMPLETELY agree with you that medicine in the USA is very expensive. I fly to the Philippines periodically for my dental care. I only pay $80 for a root canal there. Here in the US, it's around $750. I can spend the extra $670 on airfare and get myself a vacation. I mentioned to you about my brother applying for residency here over 10 years ago. He went back to the Philippines because he couldn't believe the crazy things going on here due to "defensive medicine".

THAT really is the problem. Health insurance is a smaller problem. Universal healthcare does not solve it. It only adds another problematic solution over an existing problem. First, you have to fix your healthcare system. Then you have to fix your health insurance regulations. Then you will find that you will not need universal healthcare because health insurance will cost as much as a cell phone. It retains power to the people. Pipe dream, though, right? Coz, you know, groups like the pharmaceutical industry is a giant lobby in Congress...

Edited November 4, 2009 by anatess

[talisyn]

People who need help paying for healthcare don't vote often. People who don't need help vote with their pocketbook. Lobbyists have the ears of those we elect to govern us. And that is America today.

[Moksha]

... and I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

Yeah, even when he said the word recession it sounded better.

[bytor2112]

It's not a try, Bytor, it's what she actually said

My apologies. She wasn't calling the people who want the health care bill to pass (mostly, nay, all, democrats) domestic terrorists. She was calling them worse than terrorists. These sort of mistakes in hyperbole happen a lot, it seems.

Well, actually, she was saying that the bill was more of a threat than terrorists...not comparing terrorists to Democrats. Reread it...... besides no one would mistake a Democrat for being a terrorist.......I think. Is Bill Ayers a terrorist....I mean a Democrat?

[Elphaba]

Reducing taxes ALWAYS benefits the economy and ALWAYS benefits the tax payer.

Exactly how have the Bush tax cuts benefitted our economy given it plumetted a year ago?

How did his tax cuts benefit taxpayers, other than the top 1%, given millions of them are now out of a job with no job recovery in sight.

Elphaba

Edited November 5, 2009 by Elphaba

[rameumptom]

With our personal budgets, if we find after we subtract our total expenses from our total income that we end up in the red, we have two possible things we can do to fix the bottom line:

1. Increase income

2. Decrease expenses

Ways to increase income include a second job, asking the boss for a raise, etc.

The problem is, without reducing expenses, we have a huge tendency to just take the new income and spend it on more stuff, increasing our overall debt and still leaving the bottom line in shambles. You can only get so many second jobs before you run out of time.

It doesn't matter how much income you have, you can always spend more than you make. Mike Tyson earned over $350 million in his career and is completely broke today, due to lavish spending. Michael Jackson was on the verge of bankruptcy, even after bringing in over $750 million in his lifetime (we won't discuss the hundreds of millions he's making now he's dead).

The same goes with the feds. You can increase income by doing tax cuts and deficit spending, but it isn't real. It just seems real while the economy floats on the clouds. But when reality hits, and the bubble always pops eventually, then everything comes crashing down.

Without actual spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts, you will never fix the economy. And that's what many of the Republicans do not understand yet. Of course, the Democrats have spoken about balanced budgets in the past, also; however seem to have forgotten all that and instead studied economics from Larry, Moe and Curly.

It might seem fun and good for a while, but eventually someone is going to end up with a finger in the eye....

[bytor2112]

Exactly how have the Bush tax cuts benefitted our economy given it plumetted a year ago?

How did his tax cuts benefit taxpayers, other than the top 1%, given millions of them are now out of a job with no job recovery in sight.

Elphaba

Tax revenues increased under Bush and mainly from the top 1%....check it out,it's a fact. The problem with the Bush tax cuts is that they have an expiration date....they need to be permanent and things like tax rebates and credits do not stimulate the economy....as President Obama has found when he attempted to do the same Bush mistake. Tax cuts in marginal tax rates help to grow the economy and historically this has proven to be so and it began with a Democrat named John Kennedy when he cut the top rate from 91% to 70% and then fell to it's lowest under Reagan at 28%.

So you think rather than citizens keeping more of there own money....they would be better off if they gave it to the government to spend? Seriously? How does raising taxes benefit the economy? Blame for the credit crisis/home bubble can't be laid at the feet of tax cuts or GW Bush. Those issues began long before he took office.....you may recall Bush being mocked by Congressional Democrats for sounding the warning over Freddie and Fannie?

The current mortgage crisis is rooted in the Community Reinvestment Act, (CRA), legislation signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. The legislation was pushed by groups like ACORN and it forced banks to make low-income loans to minorities. ACORN and other groups were claiming that banks were engaged in discriminatory behavior and “redlining” by refusing loans to individuals with questionable credit.

The CRA empowered the FDIC to punish banks that did not lend to low-income, risky individuals so they could own homes. Bank and mortgage lending policies were influenced by the rules demanded by CRA.

Thus, in order to avoid punishment by federal regulators, banks and mortgage companies began offering loans to risky individuals.

In 1995, President Clinton engineered a revision to the CRA – which committed nearly $1 trillion by banks for inner-city and low-income mortgages. Most of this money was funneled through a network of leftist groups like ACORN.

Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that helped create the current housing crisis. One of those decisions was to propel Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the subprime loan market. One rule permitted these groups to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments. Banks were required to hold 10%. (TVC)

In 2010 the Bush tax cuts sunset. Everyone will get a tax increase....the bottom rate will increase from 10% to 15%. And:

#

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;

#

Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;

#

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;

#

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;

#

Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;

#

Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and

#

Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010

The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.(WSJ)

Edited November 5, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

The same goes with the feds. You can increase income by doing tax cuts and deficit spending, but it isn't real. It just seems real while the economy floats on the clouds. But when reality hits, and the bubble always pops eventually, then everything comes crashing down.

The best idea is to reduce taxes and slash government waste and end deficit spending. Cutting marginal rates and slashing waste and ending deficit spending will provide a monstrous increase in revenue.

[Just_A_Guy]

Exactly how have the Bush tax cuts benefitted our economy given it plumetted a year ago?

How did his tax cuts benefit taxpayers, other than the top 1%, given millions of them are now out of a job with no job recovery in sight.

Elphaba

To borrow an argument from the current administration:

"Imagine how much worse things would have been if we hadn't done anything!!!!!!"