Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

[pirate]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Fish, haven't seen you on these particular threads much and I lack the time to go back and find my posts on this but I have proposed more than once just having people adopt families/needy people. (only half in jest)

I would rather add another family to my current healthcare plan than pay 5x that to the government for the same family to get substandard care. I'd rather pay to send a needy kid to tutoring than spend 10x that on some program that will produce a fraction of the impact.

We have people on here whining about 'trickle down' when it is a billionaire keeping $1,000 of their money but believe the same money, given to the government, finds itself immediately applied to, and fixing, a need in society.

I say cut out the middle man and get about the business of fixing the issues.

Interesting math would be what it costs to 'run' a family times the number of needy families compared to the tax contributions of those who pay net federal taxes and the amount spent by Health and Human Resources or Agriculture (where I believe foodstamps reside - because we apparently grow food stamps in the orchard next to where we grow money) on needy families.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Either you 1) ban hospital visits, emergency or not, for people who choose not to get insurance and thus game the system, or 2) everybody has to have coverage. There's no in between, and why should the responsible people get screwed?

respectfullly disagree; there is a huge "in between" which actually makes a good bit of sense.

[one of] the problem with the specific law we have now is that it specifies deductibles and co-insurance levels, and even loss ratios, that are extremely mis-aligned (that's why there were over 800 waivers granted last year, the loss ratio prescribed by law did not anticipate high-maintenance plans that are necessarily heavy on administrative expenses; they simply used loss ratio data from one particular kind of plan and merely assumed it could be extrapolated further than was realistic or practical).

Many people do not "choose" not to get insurance so much as insurance is mis-priced because of too many mandates! "Hmm...do we eat tonight, or pay too much for insurance? do we live on the streets with over-priced insurance, or do we pay the rent?" What is most practical given our diversity and our heritage is a combination plan: something like a $5,000 deductible, say, with 80% - 20% co-insurance for the next $25,000, say. That is pure "insurance." Too much of what is called "insurance" actually is forced pre-paid spending instead (people who use contraception do so with forethought; technically, "insurance" does not cover pre-planned, anticipated expenses; pure "insurance" is pooling funds to protect against risk. Including contraception in "insurance" is merely using a loophole in the tax law to make spending on contraception tax-deductible. It might make good public policy sense for other reasons; that's a separate issue. it might even make good fiscal sense for insurance companies to offer it as an option so that it reduces their exposure to sexually transmitted diseases or maternity claims; that also is a separate issue.)

The premium on a policy like that would be quite affordable compared to anything in the marketplace today. Meanwhile, there is plenty of assistance available for people to meet the deductibles, in a wide variety of ways. Not all healthcare spending has to be covered by insurance; and not all insurance has to be commercial insurance (there is room for people to self-insure as well).

We don't have "food insurance" in which people are forced to pay a premium for a specified "nutrition plan" that everyone has to purchase (or at least not yet, anyway!). Some people buy their own food while other people are given SNAP cards to use at the grocery store checkout. That seems to work, no? and food is far more important to health than anything else (try doing without food for a few months compared to going without health insurance for a few months!).

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

why should the responsible people get screwed?

Make everyone pay cash

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Fish, haven't seen you on these particular threads much and I lack the time to go back and find my posts on this but I have proposed more than once just having people adopt families/needy people. (only half in jest)

I would rather add another family to my current healthcare plan than pay 5x that to the government for the same family to get substandard care. I'd rather pay to send a needy kid to tutoring than spend 10x that on some program that will produce a fraction of the impact.

We have people on here whining about 'trickle down' when it is a billionaire keeping $1,000 of their money but believe the same money, given to the government, finds itself immediately applied to, and fixing, a need in society.

I say cut out the middle man and get about the business of fixing the issues.

Interesting math would be what it costs to 'run' a family times the number of needy families compared to the tax contributions of those who pay net federal taxes and the amount spent by Health and Human Resources or Agriculture (where I believe foodstamps reside - because we apparently grow food stamps in the orchard next to where we grow money) on needy families.

What I find extremely ironic about the whole kerfluffle about Romney's income tax return is that he gave more to charity than he paid to the federal government. If we assume that money paid to the federal government goes to support "society" and that money given to charity also goes to support "society" then his socially-effective tax rate is indeed 30%.

Buffett is giving his fortune to charity (Gates Foundation, I think) at death rather than pay estate taxes; Gates already has placed huge amount of Microsoft stock in his foundation rather than pay capital gains taxes; most wealthy people with whom I am familiar also have foundations or causes to which they donate substantial sums. Why do we want to strangle charities that do good work in order to support more layers of bureaucracy that administer programs that do nothing to solve our problems?

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Why do we want to strangle charities that do good work in order to support more layers of bureaucracy that administer programs that do nothing to solve our problems?

That's one way of framing it.

Another might be "Why do we exacerbate budget deficits by giving tax breaks to charities with little transparency and zero oversight?

That private sector charities are more efficient* than public bureaucracies is more an article of faith than a product of systematic empirical inquiry. Anecdotes aren't evidence: just as there are lots of small examples of successful charitable behavior, there are examples of waste, fraud, and manipulation of tax law. I'm no expert on the subject, but my strong hunch is bureaucracy is bureaucracy.

(*never mind the question, more efficient at what)

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

What I find extremely ironic about the whole kerfluffle about Romney's income tax return is that he gave more to charity than he paid to the federal government. If we assume that money paid to the federal government goes to support "society" and that money given to charity also goes to support "society" then his socially-effective tax rate is indeed 30%.

That's a big assumption. Not every "charity" is created equal. For example, most college football bowl games are classified as a "charity" - which also happens to be the name of one of the strippers employed where the Fiesta Bowl CEO held his "meetings".

Giving money to a church so they can build a new roof or open a soup kitchen might be charitable. Giving them money so the minister can drive around in a limo and live in a mansion really isn't. Giving money to a charity that teaches people in Africa to have sexual intercourse safely is a charitable endeavor. Giving to an organization that tells those same people that wearing a condom is a sin and they're better off getting AIDS and dying might not be looked at as the same type of charity. Yet, as far as the IRS is concerned, they're all the same.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I say cut out the middle man and get about the business of fixing the issues.

Interesting math would be what it costs to 'run' a family times the number of needy families compared to the tax contributions of those who pay net federal taxes and the amount spent by Health and Human Resources or Agriculture (where I believe foodstamps reside - because we apparently grow food stamps in the orchard next to where we grow money) on needy families.

Do that, and you'll be labeled a "job-killer." Look at how many middle-class jobs you'd eliminate by slimming down the bureaucracy that drastically!


Funny how ATMs are job killers for bank tellers yet are NOT job creators for ATM manufacturers and their suppliers, eh?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

That's a big assumption. Not every "charity" is created equal. For example, most college football bowl games are classified as a "charity" - which also happens to be the name of one of the strippers employed where the Fiesta Bowl CEO held his "meetings".

Giving money to a church so they can build a new roof or open a soup kitchen might be charitable. Giving them money so the minister can drive around in a limo and live in a mansion really isn't. Giving money to a charity that teaches people in Africa to have sexual intercourse safely is a charitable endeavor. Giving to an organization that tells those same people that wearing a condom is a sin and they're better off getting AIDS and dying might not be looked at as the same type of charity. Yet, as far as the IRS is concerned, they're all the same.

Right, and government always spends our money so responsibly!

No, seriously, it does sound like we have some common ground for an agreement here, right? we both agree that giving money directly to a soup kitchen is more economical and more effective than having the same amount of money collected in taxes?

I would also say it is more desirable, because it reinforces a sense of community and reciprocity. As a lifelong liberal, I am really angry that the government keeps inserting itself in the middle. Instead of mutual responsiblity we have invented "rights" to material things that create envy (nearly all of the classic fundamental human "rights" are to intangibles). In the 19th century, if a new family moved into town, the rest of the family would welcome them in a house-raising party. For many decades throughout the 20th century, the Welcome Wagon (private social organization) would greet new families in town with a food basket and a directory of local services. All of this was done in a sense of community.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

respectfullly disagree; there is a huge "in between" which actually makes a good bit of sense.

I'm going to address your one point about people not being able to afford insurance mostly due to mandates. I think that's a big leap. Lets take a state like Massachusetts. Probably near the top of what insurance companies have to cover under their policies. I would think a state like Texas would be near the bottom. One would think then that Texas residents would have a much higher rate of coverage than Mass residents due to the policies being cheaper and required to cover less. Even before Romneycare, Mass was at a near the highest in % of population coverage (approx 90% give or take) while in Texas IIRC like 25% of the population doesn't have it.

So, and this is purely my opinion, I don't think people are skipping health insurance because they can't afford a plan loaded with mandates. I think people are used to a system where if you get sick the ER has to treat you. So why not take advantage of that and save your potential insurance premiums to go buy a carton of cigarettes instead?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

So, and this is purely my opinion, I don't think people are skipping health insurance because they can't afford a plan loaded with mandates. I think people are used to a system where if you get sick the ER has to treat you. So why not take advantage of that and save your potential insurance premiums to go buy a carton of cigarettes instead?

Not mutually exclusive. No doubt both are going on. As you say, it is a series of inter-related self-reinforcing incentives. So much of the current distortion goes back to WW II wage price controls. If we did not have a system of health insurance based on employment, which is a direct result of wages being frozen while fringe benefits in lieu of wages were not, we would not have such a mess today.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Personally, I think it is time the churches and synagogues started paying in their share. Give them a nice tax discount but making them pay nothing is ridiculous in this day and age.

Also, it is time to start reclassifying charities as well. The gravy train for them needs to be cut off as well.

As for the rest of the tax debate, how about a compromise...bring back the Clinton era tax levels for the liberals and the conservatives can tweak Social Security and end the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Time for everyone to start paying.

(no flat tax or VAT though...too problematic for the poor)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Personally, I think it is time the churches and synagogues started paying in their share. Give them a nice tax discount but making them pay nothing is ridiculous in this day and age.

setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees with this sentiment, it appears that there may be a First Amendment issue to address on the federal level, no? and on the local level, more and more municipalities are insisting that universities start paying property taxes, and so you are already seeing this happen (story in the paper a few days ago about Brown and Providence, for example; similar one a few months ago about Yale and New Haven). they use municipal services, they pay.

Also, it is time to start reclassifying charities as well.

there are tremendous abuses there. not sure whether it has to do with the classification or just the pay the top executives get. outrageously high salaries, especially in NY state, the fraud is rampant there. legislators set up charities, hire friends, relatives, mistresses, then direct state funds to said charities from which all their cronies then draw huge six figure salaries. rampant fraud and abuse, no doubt at all. the attorney general's office cannot prosecute them fast enough before another one pops up.

Time for everyone to start paying.

(no flat tax or VAT though...too problematic for the poor)

I would not mind if everyone with an earned income had a symbolic tax rate of 1% or $1 per month or something like that. We are all of us in this together. Your kid is in midget hockey, you have team dues; you are a US citizen, you have citizenship dues. Way too much "us vs them" going on, it is unhealthy. Imagine if your lungs and liver got into a fight over which "deserved" more blood flow, your body would be in trouble. we need something concrete to remind us that everyone has to contribute something as well as receive something. the rich get protection of the law, the rest of us get hired by the rich, etc etc etc (no poor person ever hired me to work for them ever).

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I'm going to address your one point about people not being able to afford insurance mostly due to mandates. I think that's a big leap. Lets take a state like Massachusetts. Probably near the top of what insurance companies have to cover under their policies. I would think a state like Texas would be near the bottom. One would think then that Texas residents would have a much higher rate of coverage than Mass residents due to the policies being cheaper and required to cover less. Even before Romneycare, Mass was at a near the highest in % of population coverage (approx 90% give or take) while in Texas IIRC like 25% of the population doesn't have it.

So, and this is purely my opinion, I don't think people are skipping health insurance because they can't afford a plan loaded with mandates. I think people are used to a system where if you get sick the ER has to treat you. So why not take advantage of that and save your potential insurance premiums to go buy a carton of cigarettes instead?

Wouldn't that be complicated by cost of care, employment rates, professional employment as a subset, cost of living, immigration, average age, receipt of government aid per capita etc.? Call me a stereotype-ist but wouldn't Texas and Mass be about as far apart as two states could be on those types of criteria?

Not saying that invalidates your point but I suspect that the answer is a very complicated matrix of variables...not the least of which is how much insurance companies cover the whole country equally and if rates vary in direct proportion to costs in a given state or if there is some averaging going on.



edit: and regarding universities... giving federal grants to study everything from curing cancer to the happiness of mold spores while many schools sit on multi-billion dollar endowments might be something worth looking into

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I picked Texas for a reason instead of say Kentucky or Alabama. Texas is a relatively wealthy state (one of the few that sends more tax dollars to the feds than it gets back) but has a "don't pay a lot, don't get a lot" reputation. One would think a state with low unemployment would be good at insuring its residents with a bare bones policy that wouldn't include a lot of expensive mandates.

Following up on the GM bailout from another closed thread, there was talk of their profits coming from Asia. Well....

GM, which released its earnings Thursday, performed best in its home territory, posting a $7.2 billion pretax profit in North America. The numbers were so good that 47,500 blue-collar workers will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks, the maximum allowable under their new union contract. International Operations, which includes Asia, made $1.9 billion before taxes, but that was down from 2010.

GM’s cost cuts, and its outlook for this year helped to push up the stock price by almost 9 percent to $27.08. The company said it trimmed costs by $500 million in the fourth quarter alone mainly by consolidating advertising agencies and engineering operations. A prediction that costs wouldn’t rise this year wowed investors, especially since other automakers have forecast rising costs, said Itay Michaeli, an analyst for Citi Investment Research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Asia profits were about $1B for comparison's sake. A spokesman for the Romney campaign said "uhhhh...$#~t"

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees with this sentiment, it appears that there may be a First Amendment issue to address on the federal level, no? and on the local level, more and more municipalities are insisting that universities start paying property taxes, and so you are already seeing this happen (story in the paper a few days ago about Brown and Providence, for example; similar one a few months ago about Yale and New Haven). they use municipal services, they pay.

there are tremendous abuses there. not sure whether it has to do with the classification or just the pay the top executives get. outrageously high salaries, especially in NY state, the fraud is rampant there. legislators set up charities, hire friends, relatives, mistresses, then direct state funds to said charities from which all their cronies then draw huge six figure salaries. rampant fraud and abuse, no doubt at all. the attorney general's office cannot prosecute them fast enough before another one pops up.

I would not mind if everyone with an earned income had a symbolic tax rate of 1% or $1 per month or something like that. We are all of us in this together. Your kid is in midget hockey, you have team dues; you are a US citizen, you have citizenship dues. Way too much "us vs them" going on, it is unhealthy. Imagine if your lungs and liver got into a fight over which "deserved" more blood flow, your body would be in trouble. we need something concrete to remind us that everyone has to contribute something as well as receive something. the rich get protection of the law, the rest of us get hired by the rich, etc etc etc (no poor person ever hired me to work for them ever).

See the problem is that neither side wants to admit they have to give and take anymore. The rich feel they should not be punished and that is true and when things get better I am all for giving them a few breaks but right now we need them. The Middle Class feels they are getting squeezed and they are, but the fact is right now we need them. Churches and charities have been getting a free ride forever and they have unfettered access to cheap land with no taxes and lots of clout in the community, time for them to give a little back. the Boomers feel they deserve everything, well guess what, it is time someone told them to shut up and tighten the belts or cut them off completely. I am not saying raise taxes on everyone and all that, and I wouldnt even say that if I thought it would completely solve the problem which of course it wont, but this is not "Us vs. Them" anymore this is "Survival vs. Collapse". Everyone, and I mean everyone needs to help turn this around and this is just step 1 of a list of about 12 million things that need to be done to do it. We need revenues to rise and spending to drop...and fast. Pet projects need to be put on hold and Congress needs to wake up to the fact that their dithering around and basic screwing of the average American cannot be ignored anymore.

We have a massive asteroid headed towards us and most people are arguing over whether it is going to hit on land or in the sea. Who cares, either way we are dead so lets try and fix the problem before we worry about the minute details. Stop arguing about which is worse (spending or taxes) and fix both problems and see how much that helps.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

We have a massive asteroid headed towards us and most people are arguing over whether it is going to hit on land or in the sea.

I didn't want to, but I'd hate myself for passing the chance up.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I hope this Republican panel of experts in the House today went to the bar afterwards. It'd be a complete waste of an opportunity if they didn't. Seriously, a bishop, reverend and rabbi?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Well, this one's fun.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...s_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf

I can't tell what's more amusing: the dip[stick] "reporting" for Politico, or the entertaining slew of far-left and far-right morons that you see in the comments.

Meanwhile:

I hope this Republican panel of experts in the House today went to the bar afterwards. It'd be a complete waste of an opportunity if they didn't. Seriously, a bishop, reverend and rabbi?

*Standing ovation*

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I never listen to either.

There must be a ton of liberals that watch/listen to FOX/Rush because I've never met a conservative admit to it.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

There must be a ton of liberals that watch/listen to FOX/Rush because I've never met a conservative admit to it.

It's like all those <del>Republicans</del> Independents who never said a critical word about President Bush for 8 years, but never voted for him....