H8tank Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Yes? Well here you go! Senate Democrats are bracing for what they expect will be a huge price tag connected with revamping the nation’s healthcare system. The soon-to-be-delivered estimate on Democratic healthcare reform proposals is expected to be so expensive that lawmakers are talking about changing the chamber’s normal accounting procedures. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-b...2009-06-11.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 just print more money, that's the solution right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Does it even matter how expensive it is? I mean honestly they are going to do it no matter what, right? It could cost $50 Trillion and they would still do it and then justify it by saying that it will actually save us $51 Trillion in overall healthcare costs. One way or another, it's coming. The pricetag is meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 That is a GREAT article! Here are a few choice quotes . . . Complaints about CBO’s scoring of preventive benefits is not new. Republicans routinely blasted CBO on this issue when they controlled Congress during the Bush administration. CBO experts say they can only rely on hard data in assessing savings, not anecdotal information Soooo whoever is in charge doesnt like the non-partisan way of accounting for these programs. Interesting . . . where was the moral indignation during the Bush years? That being said, it sounds like CBO is actually non-partisan, which is a GOOD thing . . “That’s why I’ve proposed that we scale back how much the highest-income Americans can deduct on their taxes back to the rate from the Reagan years — and use that money to help finance healthcare,” Obama said. Hmm . . . dont most republicans try to identify themselves as "reaganesque" to separate themselves from GWB? What is wrong with this idea that brings back the good ol' days of Reaganomics??? In 2003, Democrats cried foul when the Bush administration estimate of the Medicare prescription drug bill emerged. The Bush OMB score was nearly $140 billion more than the CBO’s estimate. Bottom line is that the CBO should be used and will probably negate aspects of this reform. Nothing else to see here . . . .move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 from what I've heard, cost well over a trillion....kinda-sorta-but-not-really paid for with 600 billion in new taxes and 400 billion in medicare and medicaid cuts. sounds awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Hmm . . . dont most republicans try to identify themselves as "reaganesque" to separate themselves from GWB? What is wrong with this idea that brings back the good ol' days of Reaganomics??? Reagan was President for 8 years... IIRC the top marginal tax rate was I think somewhere up around 70% when he started his Presidency, and then down below 30% when he left his Presidency. Which Reagan-era rate do you think they are referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Reagan was President for 8 years... IIRC the top marginal tax rate was I think somewhere up around 70% when he started his Presidency, and then down below 30% when he left his Presidency. Which Reagan-era rate do you think they are referring to? 1981 rate 69.125% payable over $212,000 1982 rate 50% payable over $106,000 1987 rate 38% payable over $90,000 Linky Edited June 12, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Our presses can run 24/7 in both DC and Fort Worth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Our presses can run 24/7 in both DC and Fort Worth ladies and gentlemen, meet one of the few people in the country right now with absolute job security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 T_Bone and Obama skip to work everyday hand in hand singing "We're printing money!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 1981 rate 69.125% payable over $212,0001982 rate 50% payable over $106,000 1987 rate 38% payable over $90,000 Linky And we started digging out of the recession we were in after 1983 when the tax rates dropped. But hey, I'm sure it was completely and totally unrelated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 T_Bone and Obama skip to work everyday hand in hand singing "We're printing money!" As we dodge 88 y/o men with shotguns right across the street from the Holocaust Museum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 As we dodge 88 y/o men with shotguns right across the street from the Holocaust Museum [Perch] What kind of shotgun? [/Perch] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 [Perch] What kind of shotgun? [/Perch] I believe it was a 22 but I know nothing about guns so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nope, I still have 10 bucks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nope, I still have 10 bucks.... Can I borrow 20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Can I borrow 20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Has kali run out of money yet? LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles Zoo may have the nation's only monkey lair approved by a feng shui expert. There's only one problem: No monkeys. The city spent $7.4 million building the China-themed primate enclosure — complete with Canary Island palm trees, artificial trees with extra springy limbs, and a viewing structure with Chinese-style tilework — after China promised to lend the zoo a trio of rare golden snub-nosed monkeys. But now the Chinese government has taken the monkeys off the table, leaving zoo officials searching for suitable stand-in simians to take the place of the golden monkeys, known for their blue-faces and blond-hair. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dkxzcAD98OPORO0 Get ready Amerika, taxes will be raised to bail kai out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 1981 rate 69.125% payable over $212,0001982 rate 50% payable over $106,000 1987 rate 38% payable over $90,000 Linky Did you purposefully leave out 1988 with 28%, or were you accidentally misleading? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Did you purposefully leave out 1988 with 28%, or were you accidentally misleading? Oops. 1988 rate 28% but payable on everything over $29,750 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Oops. 1988 rate 28% but payable on everything over $29,750 Which was 4.83 times the poverty level in 1988. You know how I feel. Anyone making more than the poverty level should be paying the same percentage, since the farther away from the poverty level you get, the less likely you are going to be to receive government assistance, and use government programs. So since you are paying the same as a percentage of income, the more you make the more you pay and the less you receive, so in a way even a flat tax would be progressive in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Which was 4.83 times the poverty level in 1988. You know how I feel. Anyone making more than the poverty level should be paying the same percentage, since the farther away from the poverty level you get, the less likely you are going to be to receive government assistance, and use government programs. So since you are paying the same as a percentage of income, the more you make the more you pay and the less you receive, so in a way even a flat tax would be progressive in a sense. The ONLY way that would work perch if all the tax shelters and credits were removed from the system and a flat tax actually means a flat tax. Our tax system is a joke right now because of these breaks inserted into the tax code. You can beat your chest about how unfair the taxes are on the rich, but you fail to acknowledge how much tax is actually kept by the govt versus paid back in loopholes and tax shelters. IF Those breaks are eliminated, I am all for a flat tax across the board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The ONLY way that would work perch if all the tax shelters and credits were removed from the system and a flat tax actually means a flat tax. Our tax system is a joke right now because of these breaks inserted into the tax code. You can beat your chest about how unfair the taxes are on the rich, but you fail to acknowledge how much tax is actually kept by the govt versus paid back in loopholes and tax shelters. IF Those breaks are eliminated, I am all for a flat tax across the board! Completely rewrite the tax code, where we have a flat tax with the only deductions being charitable donations. I'd love to see that. I'd even consider giving up the deduction for charitable donations, but I don't see that as helping the tax payer so much as helping the charity, because who in the hell is going to give away $100 to save $35 in taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Completely rewrite the tax code, where we have a flat tax with the only deductions being charitable donations. I'd love to see that. I'd even consider giving up the deduction for charitable donations, but I don't see that as helping the tax payer so much as helping the charity, because who in the hell is going to give away $100 to save $35 in taxes? See I've seen and hurt this argument about the tax consequences of charitable giving, and I still think it hurts the charities. You're right in that people don't give $100 to save $35, but they give $135 because it only costs them $100. There are also other possible advantages if their AGI is reduced enough by the giving to put them in a category for something else, but not being a tax guy I can't be sure about that. Where's yo mama when you actually need him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 See I've seen and hurt this argument about the tax consequences of charitable giving, and I still think it hurts the charities. You're right in that people don't give $100 to save $35, but they give $135 because it only costs them $100. There are also other possible advantages if their AGI is reduced enough by the giving to put them in a category for something else, but not being a tax guy I can't be sure about that. Where's yo mama when you actually need him? I agree, reducing the deduction for donations to charitable organizations does not penalize the tax payer, only the charity. It is sold to the masses as sticking it to the rich guy (typical liberal class warfare) but in reality it is only sticking it to the charities. While I'd like to see us keep the deduction, I'd be willing to give it up (and I think charities would be too) if by giving it and all other deductions (loopholes) gets us to a flat tax. I think a flat tax would result in lower taxation overall, as once we are spending everyone's money, and not just the top ten percent's money, I have a feeling hat Joe Blow might be a lot more concerned about government spending, and vote to dial it back. This would more than likely result in less government and less taxes. If you are taxed less you have more money available to donate to charities. Going to a flat tax or a sales tax is the only way I could support getting rid or reducing the deduction for charitable donations, as I don't want to do anything that will reduce the amount of money charities receive which is all this type of class warfare is going to do. Ask yourself what is more important, me giving $100 the the American Cancer Society, or me paying $100 more in taxes so that the government can spend $40 on cancer research and waste $60 within it's bureaucracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.