Healthcare reform

[Texsox]

Economic growth - the private sector, individuals and corporations.

 

So we took a cut, then paid it back later? Meanwhile the deficit forced money to be borrowed, so we paid the cut back with interest.

[southsider2k5]

So we took a cut, then paid it back later? Meanwhile the deficit forced money to be borrowed, so we paid the cut back with interest.

 

I have said this before, but you really need to study the multiplier effect.

[Texsox]

I have said this before, but you really need to study the multiplier effect.

 

And we went through and we never found where that $1 became anything more than $1.

 

Bottom line, someone pays the higher revenues. At best it shifts the tax from someone to someone else. After the cut, who pays more and who pays less? Someone is making those higher payments. Who?

[southsider2k5]

And we went through and we never found where that $1 became anything more than $1.

 

Bottom line, someone pays the higher revenues. At best it shifts the tax from someone to someone else. After the cut, who pays more and who pays less?

 

Then you didn't read it.

[bmags]

Who determins if they can afford it or not? And like all things government, even if they only subsidize a 'portion' right now, how long until some Democrat realizes if he increases that portion, he can perhaps win a few more votes in the next election? or until the people just below the cutoff for the subsidizing start to rally complaining that the demarcation line was set too high, and that they shoudl be included too? it will never end.

 

it's at % of income. But nonetheless, in your scenario, he'd still need the support of 218 congressman/woman and ...as it appears forever more, 60 senators (or rather 217 and 59 assuming his own support), and the President.

 

THis reform has taken an incredibly long time and, if it passes, needed an overwhelming majority at every level. For each change, will the same fight happen?

 

But if they do need to raise the subsidies it will be bad because likely that means the premiums haven't gone down even with the added population and shared riskk.

[Texsox]

Then you didn't read it.

 

Who pays the additional revenue?

 

I'll even give you a hint, it's the good looking guy we both see in the mirror each morning.

[southsider2k5]

Who pays the additional revenue?

 

I'll even give you a hint, it's the good looking guy we both see in the mirror each morning.

 

No it isn't. Again, read the explanation of the multiplier effect. This is a definition based on deposits and loans, but the concept is the same on anything that has to do with revenues and collections. Just substitute taxes and savings in.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp

 

The expansion of a country's money supply that results from banks being able to lend. The size of the multiplier effect depends on the percentage of deposits that banks are required to hold as reserves. In other words, it is money used to create more money and is calculated by dividing total bank deposits by the reserve requirement.

Investopedia Says

Investopedia explains Multiplier Effect

The multiplier effect depends on the set reserve requirement. So, to calculate the impact of the multiplier effect on the money supply, we start with the amount banks initially take in through deposits and divide this by the reserve ratio. If, for example, the reserve requirement is 20%, for every $100 a customer deposits into a bank, $20 must be kept in reserve. However, the remaining $80 can be loaned out to other bank customers. This $80 is then deposited by these customers into another bank, which in turn must also keep 20%, or $16, in reserve but can lend out the remaining $64. This cycle continues - as more people deposit money and more banks continue lending it - until finally the $100 initially deposited creates a total of $500 ($100 / 0.2) in deposits. This creation of deposits is the multiplier effect.

 

The higher the reserve requirement, the tighter the money supply, which results in a lower multiplier effect for every dollar deposited. The lower the reserve requirement, the larger the money supply, which means more money is being created for every dollar deposited.

[Texsox]

I understand that, however, you are missing my point.

 

Revenues go up. OK I will accept that. Revenues going up mean someone is depositing more money. Who is that and what tax are they paying? Simple question.

 

If you and I aren't accounting for those higher revenues, it must be corporations, and as you have always pointed out, corporations pass that on to the consumers.

[southsider2k5]

I understand that, however, you are missing my point.

 

Revenues go up. OK I will accept that. Revenues going up mean someone is depositing more money. Who is that and what tax are they paying? Simple question.

 

If you and I aren't accounting for those higher revenues, it must be corporations, and as you have always pointed out, corporations pass that on to the consumers.

 

More money is circulation means more people are spending money. More people spending money means more income is being generated, more income means more taxes are getting paid.

[Texsox]

More money is circulation means more people are spending money. More people spending money means more income is being generated, more income means more taxes are getting paid.

 

Since you will not answer who is paying the higher revenue, I will assume you agree that more income taxes are being paid by us. And now we are paying for the current spending, plus the prior spending, plus the interest on the deficit. Plus, that would mean incomes are rising, something we are against in certain sectors because rising wages makes those products uncompetitive. (Autos for one)

 

We agree that more money being spent generates more income. We cut someone's taxes and they decide to save that dollar, or spend it on a foreign vacation, or to buy a made overseas item, the effect is not as strong. The only entity we can be 100% guaranteed to spend the money is the government. Of course I would rather you and I spend the money than the government

 

This all changes when we are rebating taxes because there is a surplus! The politician or party that pulls that off will have my vote forever. My objection is the bribing for votes that cutting taxes without changing spending brings. As you said, the bulk of the taxes are being paid by the middle class and above. I don't foresee that changing in the next couple decades. So those deficits will be paid by us, the middle class, with interest.

 

When did a balanced budget become a liberal idea? I find it funny that during the 1990s with the GOP's "Contract For America" you would have been on the Dem side fighting against it and I would have been the GOPerhead.

[mr_genius]

We agree that more money being spent generates more income. We cut someone's taxes and they decide to save that dollar, or spend it on a foreign vacation, or to buy a made overseas item, the effect is not as strong. The only entity we can be 100% guaranteed to spend the money is the government.

 

The federal government outsources billions up billions of work to India. So, there is no guarantee government spending will be done in the US. A lot of state governments even outsource it's food stamps and welfare systems to India, which really is an abomination if you think about it.

[southsider2k5]

Since you will not answer who is paying the higher revenue, I will assume you agree that more income taxes are being paid by us. And now we are paying for the current spending, plus the prior spending, plus the interest on the deficit. Plus, that would mean incomes are rising, something we are against in certain sectors because rising wages makes those products uncompetitive. (Autos for one)

 

We agree that more money being spent generates more income. We cut someone's taxes and they decide to save that dollar, or spend it on a foreign vacation, or to buy a made overseas item, the effect is not as strong. The only entity we can be 100% guaranteed to spend the money is the government. Of course I would rather you and I spend the money than the government

 

This all changes when we are rebating taxes because there is a surplus! The politician or party that pulls that off will have my vote forever. My objection is the bribing for votes that cutting taxes without changing spending brings. As you said, the bulk of the taxes are being paid by the middle class and above. I don't foresee that changing in the next couple decades. So those deficits will be paid by us, the middle class, with interest.

 

When did a balanced budget become a liberal idea? I find it funny that during the 1990s with the GOP's "Contract For America" you would have been on the Dem side fighting against it and I would have been the GOPerhead.

 

Higher income means higher total taxes paid, while at a lesser rate.

[kapkomet]

Higher income means higher total taxes paid, while at a lesser rate.

Which for some reason Democrats cannot wrap their thick heads around.

 

[jasonxctf]

Pelosi wasn’t the only one getting pressure on the amendment. As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.

[southsider2k5]

Pelosi wasn’t the only one getting pressure on the amendment. As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.

 

Also interesting from the Catholics, was that they are now urging members of Congress to vote for this bill as is.... Mostly because I didn't see anyone wanting to take away their not for profit status for being involved in politics here.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Also interesting from the Catholics, was that they are now urging members of Congress to vote for this bill as is.... Mostly because I didn't see anyone wanting to take away their not for profit status for being involved in politics here.

Given the $550,000 that the Catholic church donated to take away my equal protection under the law in the state of Maine this fall, they should damn well lose their tax exemption.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Greg Sargent reports on a letter from 41 House Democrats that reads in part, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law."

[BigSqwert]

Given the $550,000 that the Catholic church donated to take away my equal protection under the law in the state of Maine this fall, they should damn well lose their tax exemption.

[BigSqwert]

Representative Joseph Cao is a freshman Republican who won 49.6 percent of the vote against a corrupt incumbent in a district that’s 64% black and has a median income of $25,000. I think it should come as no surprise that someone in that situation might want to break with the GOP leadership now and then. For example, he voted for the health care reform bill last night. For his trouble, he’s being treated to some interesting tweets:

RT @RightBloggerPat: @AnhJo

s

ephCao You Ba

s

tard piece of

s

*** f***! GO BAC

K

TO

S

aigon,

S

outh Vietnam where you f***ing BELONG GOO

K

! #TCOT

There’s also a whole bunch of folks who’ve decided that it’d be hilarious to start referring to Rep. Cao as “Mao” because, you see, they’re both responsible for the deaths of millions Asians. Also this.

 

I think the conservative movement is going to continue to struggle in a decreasingly white America.

 

LINK

[HuskyCaucasian]

Greg Sargent reports on a letter from 41 House Democrats that reads in part, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law."

Wasserman-Schultz: We Will Kill Stupak Amendment

The war within Democratic ranks over the anti-abortion Stupak amendment is rapidly heating up, and Dem Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz threw down the gauntlet on MSNBC moments ago, vowing that she and others are doing all they can to kill the provision.

 

Wasserman-Schultz — whose voice carries a fair amount of weight among liberals in Congress — said that she’s confident the amendment will be gone in the end:

[Cknolls]

<!--quoteo(post=2040319:date=Nov 9, 2009 -> 12:36 PM:name=Athomeboy_2000)-->

<!--quotec-->Greg Sargent reports on a letter from 41 House Democrats that reads in part, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law."

Wasserman-Schultz: We Will Kill Stupak Amendment

 

 

Is this another civil war, on the other side of the aisle?

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Is this another civil war, on the other side of the aisle?

I sincerely doubt they'll let something silly like throwing women under the bus derail this bill. I expect a similar clause to appear in the Senate version at some point.

[Texsox]

Given the $550,000 that the Catholic church donated to take away my equal protection under the law in the state of Maine this fall, they should damn well lose their tax exemption.

Every charity has the same opportunity under the law.

[NorthSideSox72]

On a slow day on SoxTalk, here is something to ponder. NPR did a little article on the Senate health care bill as it currently stands, but instead of focusing on the big ticket items, they drilled down to find 7 provisions in the bill not being discussed much, but that have some important impact.

 

Article.

 

Thoughts on these?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Health insurance giant Aetna is planning to force up to 650,000 clients to drop their coverage next year as it seeks to raise additional revenue to meet profit expectations.

 

In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/a...s_n_380130.html