The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D9FQ...;show_article=1

 

Some more "facts" that were flat out lies on the health care bill.

 

It's simply amazing to hear all this crap now that we're getting free health care.

 

FACT CHECK: Tax cut math doesn't add up for some

May 20 03:08 AM US/Eastern

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.

But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldn't get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. "It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch," he said.

 

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its "broad eligibility" for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffman's workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didn't qualify.

 

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

 

It's an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to help—people with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the law's complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.

 

Consider small businesses: "The idea here is to target the credits to a relatively low number of firms, those who are low-wage and really quite small," said economist Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute public policy center.

 

On paper, the credit seems to be available to companies with fewer than 25 workers and average wages of $50,000. But in practice, a complicated formula that combines the two numbers works against companies that have more than 10 workers and $25,000 in average wages, Blumberg said.

 

"You can get zero even if you are not hitting the max on both pieces," Blumberg said.

 

Hoffman used an online calculator to figure his company's eligibility. At least three are available: from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which helped write the legislation; from the progressive Center for American Progress; and from the National Federation of Independent Business, which is seeking to overturn the law in federal court. All produced the same result.

 

"I think (the administration's) intentions are good, but the numbers and applications don't come out to what they intend," said Hoffman, part owner of Wiley Office Furniture, a third-generation family business in Springfield, Ill.

 

The Treasury Department, which administers the new credit, did not dispute the calculations.

 

"The small-business tax credit was designed to provide the greatest benefit to employers that currently have the hardest time providing health insurance for their workers—small, low-wage firms," said Michael Mundaca, assistant secretary for tax policy. "Small employers face higher premiums and higher administrative costs than large firms and in many cases cannot afford to provide coverage."

 

Small business owners are a pivotal constituency in the fall congressional elections, and Democrats are battling to win them over. Major benefits of the health care law—competitive insurance markets, more stable premiums and a ban on denying coverage to those in poor health—don't take effect until 2014. But the health care credit is available starting this year.

 

It can be a boon for smaller companies paying lower wages. Betsy Burton, owner of The King's English Bookshop in Salt Lake City, estimates that she will get a credit of roughly $21,000 against premiums of about $67,800. She has 11 full-time equivalent employees averaging $26,100.

 

"What it means is that I can afford to carry this insurance and insure people's families," said Burton. "I was afraid that we were fast approaching a time when I would have to choose between insuring my employees and closing my doors."

 

Burton believes offering health insurance is the right thing for an employer to do—and also makes good business sense because it helps her retain valued employees. Except at the beginning, she has provided coverage for most of the 33 years the bookstore has been in business.

 

Slightly more than a third of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered coverage in 2008, down about 10 percent since the start of the decade, according to an Urban Institute analysis.

 

Hoffman, the furniture store owner whose business missed out on the credit, says he understands that lawmakers writing the health care legislation had a limited amount of money to work with. But his company's premiums rose 15 percent this year, and it's a struggle to keep paying.

 

To get the most out of the new federal credit, Hoffman said he'd have to cut his work force to 10 employees and slash their wages.

 

"That seems like a strange outcome, given we've got 10 percent unemployment," he said.

 

 

[mr_genius]

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D9FQ...;show_article=1

 

Some more "facts" that were flat out lies on the health care bill.

 

It's simply amazing to hear all this crap now that we're getting free health care.

 

dude it's free.

 

how can something free be expensive? it can't. because it's free.

 

free house, free food, free health care, free everything. win win.

[Jenksismyhero]

dude it's free.

 

how can something free be expensive? it can't. because it's free.

 

free house, free food, free health care, free everything. win win.

 

I'm considering quitting my job and applying for the various handouts the rest of the country gets. I'm a white male, so chances are low that i'll be eligible to begin with, but shoot, I'll give it a try. I just bought a house, so I'm just gonna stop paying for it because Obama will help me renegotiate my already good deal to be a better one. I don't have any health insurance now, but i'm glad in a few years I can continue not having insurance, but demand treatment if I get into a serious accident (letting you schmucks pick up the 100k+ tab). I'll get a huge discount on all my food purchases (some free, including the name brand stuff you suckers continue to buy full price). I'm also going to convince my fiance to start popping out kids so we can get two or three times these benefits.

 

American dream FTMFW!

[mr_genius]

I'm considering quitting my job and applying for the various handouts the rest of the country gets. I'm a white male, so chances are low that i'll be eligible to begin with, but shoot, I'll give it a try. I just bought a house, so I'm just gonna stop paying for it because Obama will help me renegotiate my already good deal to be a better one. I don't have any health insurance now, but i'm glad in a few years I can continue not having insurance, but demand treatment if I get into a serious accident (letting you schmucks pick up the 100k+ tab). I'll get a huge discount on all my food purchases (some free, including the name brand stuff you suckers continue to buy full price). I'm also going to convince my fiance to start popping out kids so we can get two or three times these benefits.

 

you would be the poster boy of success for the Democrat party.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are so sweet.

[mr_genius]

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are so sweet.

 

does that include the government worker sitting around making 140,000 a year to do nothing? with gold platted benefits, full pension of course. sounds pretty sweet to me.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are so sweet.

 

Yup. Amazing.

[Jenksismyhero]

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are so sweet.

 

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are awful, or that only the most destitute of people are on those benefits. Given the effort those people give to get those benefits (none), it truly makes me sick knowing that my hard working, broke, in-debt-up-to-my-eyeballs-ass gets to keep paying for them.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The amazing thing is, you guys think that the lives people on government benefits live are awful, or that only the most destitute of people are on those benefits. Given the effort those people give to get those benefits (none), it truly makes me sick knowing that my hard working, broke, in-debt-up-to-my-eyeballs-ass gets to keep paying for them.

And that right there is a great example of why I'm a Democrat.

 

You believe that if a few people take advantage of modest government benefits as a means to avoid working hard, the program is a terrible failure, no matter how many people might actually use it correctly and have major benefits to their lives by having a safety net.

 

I believe that if a program helps a large number of people stay on their feet and avoid having their lives fall apart when something bad happens to them, if a small fraction of people take unfair advantage of the situation, I can live with that, as long as good is being done.

[Jenksismyhero]

And that right there is a great example of why I'm a Democrat.

 

You believe that if a few people take advantage of modest government benefits as a means to avoid working hard, the program is a terrible failure, no matter how many people might actually use it correctly and have major benefits to their lives by having a safety net.

 

I believe that if a program helps a large number of people stay on their feet and avoid having their lives fall apart when something bad happens to them, if a small fraction of people take unfair advantage of the situation, I can live with that, as long as good is being done.

 

And that's the reason I'm a "Republican."

 

If only your description was how the system actually works. Unfortunately it's not. It's not to help people "stay on their feet" "when something bad happens to them." It's a LIFETIME entitlement program. I have NO qualms whatsoever with giving people TEMPORARY relief when crazy s*** happens in life, but I dunno how you can seriously contend that our welfare system is like that. Which is my main gripe with it. I'm not opposed to some sort of welfare system, but how about one that makes a little sense and doesn't reward complacency? How about one where you have to provide PROOF that you’re not committing criminal acts (like doing drugs) or PROOF that you’re actively seeking a job. Hell, those should be baseline rules and they don’t even exist.

 

And this part - "as long as good is being done" - yeah, the system helps a minority of people who legitimately need the help. The rest are free loaders that have ZERO incentive to get off the system, a system that requires more and more of the rest of societies money. GENERATIONS of people live in public housing and recieve public aid, and they could give two s***s about getting out of that system. And why would they? They're being provided with nearly everything. My favorite example of this was when a single mother of two, living in a $2400/month brand spanking new 2 bed, 2 bath apartment, complained that she had to pay for electricity for the first time in her life (a whopping 30 bucks a month on top of her $150 rent contribution). Oh the horror! And this isn't an isolated incident, the entire Cabrini Green revitilization project is filled with THOUSANDS of people in similiar situations.

 

And the bigger problem with this is that "democrats" seem to think all this stuff actually helps in the long run. All it does has done is create generations of people who feel entitled to get something for free, which is the complete opposite of the mentality they should have. It should be, I'm on my own, but in the unfortunate event that life really screws me good, my incredibly successful and advanced society will help me back on my way. Instead it's, f*** the man, I DESERVE everything. It's not fair all of those other people have more than me!

 

Like my sig says, you better keep working harder, cuz lots of people depend on you.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

does that include the government worker sitting around making 140,000 a year to do nothing? with gold platted benefits, full pension of course. sounds pretty sweet to me.

 

 

When I grow up, I want to be a banking regulator. Easiest job ever.

[Balta1701]

And you know what would be better for society? Throwing that woman's kids out on the street and letting them fend for themselves. That'll teach them a lesson.

 

Without even bothering to challenge the accuracy of the anecdote, which I'm sure can be fairly easily done there.

[Balta1701]

When I grow up, I want to be a banking regulator. Easiest job ever.

Yup. The less you do, the greater the salary GS will pay you as a reward when they hire you 5 years later.

[southsider2k5]

Yup. The less you do, the greater the salary GS will pay you as a reward when they hire you 5 years later.

 

Plus I get paid to surf pron.

[Jenksismyhero]

And you know what would be better for society? Throwing that woman's kids out on the street and letting them fend for themselves. That'll teach them a lesson.

 

Without even bothering to challenge the accuracy of the anecdote, which I'm sure can be fairly easily done there.

 

No, but how about as a society we teach our young people that YOU CAN'T JUST RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT ALL THE F'N TIME?! Why is that so hard? It's not leaving people on the street to die, it's telling people YOUR LIFE IS YOUR LIFE, SOCIETY ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU. Oh wait, the government knows better than the individual right? What's the line? GOVERNMENT SAVES!

 

And you're going to refute what I witnessed in person? That's rich. Be sure to link me to some liberal blog.

[Balta1701]

No, but how about as a society we teach our young people that YOU CAN'T JUST RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT ALL THE F'N TIME?! Why is that so hard? It's not leaving people on the street to die, it's telling people YOUR LIFE IS YOUR LIFE, SOCIETY ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU. Oh wait, the government knows better than the individual right? What's the line? GOVERNMENT SAVES!

 

And you're going to refute what I witnessed in person? That's rich. Be sure to link me to some liberal blog.

So, yeah, your answer to what to do with that kid's children is to either take them away from their mother (which we're not allowed to do, you know, property rights) or tell them to get a job.

 

No, I don't care if they're 5. After all, like Rand Paul says, Child Labor laws are an unconstitutional violation of the rights of private business.

[NorthSideSox72]

Serious question... I see Balta claiming that these programs are doing what they are supposed to for 90% of the people on them. And I see WCSox saying the opposite. I just did a little Googling, and I see a lot of conjecture out there in the ether as well, but I don't see anything substantive. The question is, what percentage is it really? How many people are gaming the system? Because neither of you are providing any data to support either claim.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

So, yeah, your answer to what to do with that kid's children is to either take them away from their mother (which we're not allowed to do, you know, property rights) or tell them to get a job.

 

No, I don't care if they're 5. After all, like Rand Paul says, Child Labor laws are an unconstitutional violation of the rights of private business.

 

Yeah except for the fact that he said neither, but then your argument wouldnt work as well so I get why you do did that

[Balta1701]

Serious question... I see Balta claiming that these programs are doing what they are supposed to for 90% of the people on them. And I see WCSox saying the opposite. I just did a little Googling, and I see a lot of conjecture out there in the ether as well, but I don't see anything substantive. The question is, what percentage is it really? How many people are gaming the system? Because neither of you are providing any data to support either claim.

I don't know if you have access, but here you go.

 

There have been a number of reviews of the research literature on the effects

of 1990s welfare reform in the US (Blank, 2002; Moffitt, 2003; Grogger and Karoly, 2005;

Blank, 2007b). Here a relatively short summary of the findings will be provided.

The simplest method of assessing the effects of the reform is by examining time-series

trends in the outcomes of interest. Figures 2 and 3 show trends in AFDC-TANF expenditures

and caseloads, for example. These figures show a dramatic reduction in both over the relevant

period, with the caseload, dropping to levels in 2004 below even those in the first year shown,

1970. This historically unprecedented decline is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in

support of a welfare reform effect. Two complicating factors must be stated, however. One is[

that the unemployment rate (also shown in the figure) was falling at the same time and, indeed, it

fell to historically low levels as well; this could have reduced the welfare caseload by itself.

Further evidence on this issue will be mentioned below, but one piece of evidence suggesting

that the unemployment rate per se was not the whole story is simply the fact that the

unemployment rate rose in 2001 because of a recession beginning that year, returning to levels

obtaining in the early 1990s and early 1970s, yet the welfare caseload remained low. The other

complicating factor is that the decline in the caseload began somewhat prior to 1996. Most

analysts believe that this was partly the result of the state-level welfare reforms that began in the

early 1990s, but contributing factors could have been, again, the state of the economy but also

concomitant expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Figure 4 shows trends in the employment-to-population ratio, a common measure of labor

force activity, and shows it for two different groups of women--single-mother families with less

than a high school education and those with more than a high school education. This illustrates

the second methodology mentioned above, inasmuch as women with more than a high school

education should have been affected much less by the reform than those with lower levels of

education. The figure shows that the employment-population ratio for the less-educated mothers

(the lower line in the figure) started rising in 1993, about the time of the expansion of the EITC

and the beginning of state-level welfare reform, then took a major, historically large jump after

1996. The employment rates for more educated mothers rose only slightly over the same period.

This suggests that welfare reform had a significant positive impact on employment, and one that

was not the result of the unemployment rate, which could be argued to have had similar effects

on the two groups (although this could be called into question). It should be noted, however, that

16

the employment rate fell a bit more after 1999 for the lesser educated mothers compared to those

who were more educated, a sign either that the gains from welfare reform were lost to some

extent in the medium run, or that other forces were at work farther along in time.

Figure 5 shows trends in the poverty rate of two types of families, those headed by a

married couple and those headed by a single mother. Once again, the latter group was affected

much more by welfare reform than the former group. The figure shows a steep decline in the

poverty rate of single mother families immediately after 1996 but only a slight decline in that of

married couples. Further, while the poverty rates of both groups have risen since 2001, the

poverty rate of single mother families has remained far below what it was prior to 1996.

These simple figures provide strong prima facie evidence that the reform had effects on

caseloads, program expenditures, employment (albeit possibly only in the short run), and poverty

rates. However, this evidence needs to be backed up by more formal statistical analyses using

these same methodologies in a more careful way, and by using the other methodologies discussed

above. The reviews of the literature mentioned above have assessed that evidence.

Table 4 shows a summary of the findings from these reviews. The statistical studies of

the effect of welfare reform on caseloads and welfare use in general almost all show negative

effects of reform. These studies control for the state of the economy and hence indicate that not

all of the decline was a result of changing economic conditions (these studies were conducted

prior to the recession of 2001+ as well). The central tendency of the findings suggest that

caseloads were reduced by about 20 percent and employment was increased by about 4 percent as

a result of welfare reform. The studies all show some contribution of the economy to the

caseload decreases and employment increases as well, however, and many attempt to quantify the

17

relative contributions of welfare reform and the economy to the decline in welfare use. The

estimates range considerably but some assign at least half of the decline to the effects of an

improved economy. Even if this is correct, it still implies a large effect of welfare reform.

One of the interesting findings from these studies is that much of the decline in welfare

use and caseloads arose because of decreased entry instead of increased exit (Acs et al., 2003;

Grogger et al., 2003; Mueser et al., 2000). Although it is unquestionable that welfare reform

induced more women who were initially on welfare to leave, both because of increased

government subsidies to work off welfare (e.g., from the Earned Income Tax Credit) or because

of the “push” of welfare work requirements, sanctions, and time limits, it is also the case that

many women who would ordinarily have gone onto welfare when faced with a decline in income

or earnings--possibly a temporary one--instead stayed off welfare after the reform. It would not

be surprising if this were a result, as well, of the increased work requirements, sanctions, and

time limits on welfare, which would naturally be thought to make welfare less attractive. The

EITC and a strong labor market would presumably also allow families to stay off welfare. The

motivations of this group have been difficult to document with the available evidence, but this

interpretation of the reduced entry effect is the one given by most analysts.

Another issue of interest is the extent to which those women who left welfare did so

because of the stronger sanction policy. This is quite difficult to determine because some

women leave welfare in anticipation of being sanctioned and therefore never actually experience

a sanction; therefore, the number of women actually sanctioned is an underestimate of the

number affected. For example, many of the women who left welfare did so merely by not

showing up for work sessions or not showing up for eligibility redetermination meetings, or just

18

not replying to letters and requests for information, meetings, or documentation. If some

fraction of these recipients knew that sanctions would be imposed if they did not comply and

decided simply to go off welfare in anticipation, this would be somewhat difficult to measure.

Nevertheless, cross-state comparisons of states with differing strengths of sanction policies show

that stronger sanctions result in lower welfare usage and caseloads (Levine and Whitmore, 1998).

What is more easily measured is how many of the women who left welfare had, in fact,

actually been sanctioned. Here the figures indicate that a large fraction were, possibly 10 or 20

percent. Indeed, sanctions were often imposed, even though some were “partial” sanctions and

did not result in welfare termination: nationwide, about 5 percent of TANF recipients were

sanctioned every month in the few years after the legislation.

The evidence on who was sanctioned and who was not is not solid, but several studies

show, surprisingly, that sanctions were not always imposed on the more “job-ready” individuals

(Pavetti et al., 2003). If those who have the greatest labor market opportunities off welfare--the

greatest levels of education, the greatest levels of past work experience, and so on--end up being

sanctioned because they appear to be capable of work but refuse to do so, the framers of the

legislation would see that as fulfilling the purpose of the sanctions. But if some of those

sanctioned were the least job-ready and were drawn from the more disadvantaged portion of the

caseload, policy-makers would be concerned. In this case, it is possible that families who are in

turmoil or who cannot organize their lives sufficiently to comply with the rules are the same ones

who are forced off welfare, and are likely to be worse off as a result.

The findings on employment and earnings reported in Table 4 confirm the time-series

evidence presented earlier, indicating consistently positive effects of welfare reform. About

19

two-thirds of women who left welfare were employed in the immediate period following reform,

and many more were employed at some point over a longer period of one or two years (Acs and

Loprest, 2004). This was one of the most surprising results of welfare reform, for historical

employment rates of women on welfare had never exceeded 10 or 15 percent at most, and were

usually less than 10 percent. The idea that two thirds of these women were capable of working,

or even that a selected portion of recipients (the more job-ready) were capable of working at

these levels, was a major surprise and resulted in a fundamental change in policy-makers’ views

of the work ability of women on welfare.

A high fraction of those who left worked full time (defined as 35 hours per week or

more), and hourly wage rates of those who worked were reasonably high (Acs and Loprest,

2004). Earnings increased for women who left welfare, although this is to be expected if

employment increased to 60%-70% relative to 10% or less when on welfare. Another outcome

of interest is whether there were increased earnings from individuals in the household other than

the welfare recipient herself--for example, older children, spouses or cohabitors, or other

relatives. The evidence has indicated considerably greater increases in this form of earnings than

expected (Bavier, 2001). The general interpretation is that families that went off welfare

increased employment from many family members in order to sustain their family incomes./quote]

[Balta1701]

Yeah except for the fact that he said neither, but then your argument wouldnt work as well so I get why you do did that

So, let's see, you've got 2 kids living with an unemployed, hell let's say substance addicted parent. His argument is that those kids need to learn that they can't get by on government handouts. So, what exactly should be done? The mother isn't going to provide for them, clearly. You can't have the state intervene; that teaches them that the state will intervene. So what else is left?

[Jenksismyhero]

So, let's see, you've got 2 kids living with an unemployed, hell let's say substance addicted parent. His argument is that those kids need to learn that they can't get by on government handouts. So, what exactly should be done? The mother isn't going to provide for them, clearly. You can't have the state intervene; that teaches them that the state will intervene. So what else is left?

 

Who says the state can't intervene? If you're a f***ed up junkie parent who can't get a job you shouldn't just be paid to have children so the state stays away.

 

[Balta1701]

Who says the state can't intervene? If you're a f***ed up junkie parent who can't get a job you shouldn't just be paid to have children so the state stays away.

Great. So where are you putting the kids? In that huge pool of foster families that are out there, right? So now the kids are getting bailed out by the government, the foster family is getting paid by the government to take them, and you're angry because your tax dollars are going to deal with other people's problems and because the kids are still being taught that the government will bail them out if they screw up.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know if you have access, but here you go.

 

The findings on employment and earnings reported in Table 4 confirm the time-series

evidence presented earlier, indicating consistently positive effects of welfare reform. About

19

two-thirds of women who left welfare were employed in the immediate period following reform,

and many more were employed at some point over a longer period of one or two years (Acs and

Loprest, 2004). This was one of the most surprising results of welfare reform, for historical

employment rates of women on welfare had never exceeded 10 or 15 percent at most, and were

usually less than 10 percent. The idea that two thirds of these women were capable of working,

or even that a selected portion of recipients (the more job-ready) were capable of working at

these levels, was a major surprise and resulted in a fundamental change in policy-makers’ views

of the work ability of women on welfare.

A high fraction of those who left worked full time (defined as 35 hours per week or

more), and hourly wage rates of those who worked were reasonably high (Acs and Loprest,

2004). Earnings increased for women who left welfare, although this is to be expected if

employment increased to 60%-70% relative to 10% or less when on welfare. Another outcome

of interest is whether there were increased earnings from individuals in the household other than

the welfare recipient herself--for example, older children, spouses or cohabitors, or other

relatives. The evidence has indicated considerably greater increases in this form of earnings than

expected (Bavier, 2001). The general interpretation is that families that went off welfare

increased employment from many family members in order to sustain their family incomes./

 

LOL. What a shock! They were FORCED TO GET JOBS like the rest of us.

[Balta1701]

LOL. What a shock! They were FORCED TO GET JOBS like the rest of us.

Or...they went off welfare because they found jobs.

[Jenksismyhero]

Great. So where are you putting the kids? In that huge pool of foster families that are out there, right? So now the kids are getting bailed out by the government, the foster family is getting paid by the government to take them, and you're angry because your tax dollars are going to deal with other people's problems and because the kids are still being taught that the government will bail them out if they screw up.

 

Kids growing up in foster care I would bet live better lives than kids growing up in public housing developments filled with drugs and crime and a mother/father that can't provide. Moreover, I'm much more willing to give my tax dollars to those kids knowing that their chances of not falling into the same life as their parents.

 

And I dunno how that keeps them in the government will bail them out category. By 18 they are on their own (again, like the rest of us). And hopefully along the way they'll have better role models and realize being poor and relying on the government for everything isn't a good life.