ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[jbrettlip]

And the fact that the CEO's are being brought before Congress to EXPLAIN these charges. f*ck. It just shows, the politicians have no idea what this law entails. SEC regs require them to take these charges and the Dems are accusing them of playing politics.

This is a for profit country. If you don't like AT&T, don't do business with them. If you want to share in their profiits, buy there stock. If you want some of their money for yourslef for no reason, keep voting democrat. But realize the country won't be here much longer if you do.





Fucking Commies.

[Phatscotty]

And the fact that the CEO's are being brought before Congress to EXPLAIN these charges. f*ck. It just shows, the politicians have no idea what this law entails. SEC regs require them to take these charges and the Dems are accusing them of playing politics.

This is a for profit country. If you don't like AT&T, don't do business with them. If you want to share in their profiits, buy there stock. If you want some of their money for yourslef for no reason, keep voting democrat. But realize the country won't be here much longer if you do.





Fucking Commies.

Freedom?

[Night Strike]

Sallie Mae plans to lay off 2,500 workers since the federal government took away the Stafford Loan business. I'm sure many other banks will begin to do so as well since this provision was slid into the health care bill. Not only are they killing jobs, but I'm nearly certain they purposely included this change so that they can bribe people with debt forgiveness to expand the "public service" jobs. Obama did say he wants a civilian service as large as the military.

[MeDeFe]

Scotty, your criticism of my understanding of socialism is compelling (though socialism can exist at the city level as well). From my perspective, one of the main reasons (though not the only reason) that modern governments in industrialized nations exist is to protect people from rampant power. In developed countries like the U.S., a lot of that protection means protection from corporations that are by their very nature driven by greed.

I wouldn't and didn't say that everyone has a fighting chance. That is something that many of us like to believe, but in reality it isn't true. The wealth gap is widening at a startling rate and that, to me, is an indication that people in fact have even less of a fighting change than they used to. Sure, there are people who overcome seemingly insurmountable odds, but the fact that there is a whole section of the movie industry devoted to telling their story should make it clear how rare those individuals are; that's exactly why those movies are "inspiring." Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of similar people who try just as hard but never make it because that is how this system works.

I've had this argument too many times to have it again. The income gap is always gong to widen. The people with the most money are pretty smart when it comes to money and even smarter about keeping it. However the income gap gas nothing to do with the poorest person being able to stand out and work hard and eventually set up a pretty good life for him/herself, if not their children. Oops, is that too priviledged? toungue in cheek

I don't think it's as black and white as either allowing parents to provide for their children or not allowing them to. Few would deny parents that right.

The fact the income gap is actually not rising in some industrialized nations (e.g., in the United Kingdom, I believe) disproves the idea that it must always grow. That's a fairly bleak outlook on the world, in fact, because a widening income gap translates as increasing poverty for ever vaster portions of the majority.

The Income gap will always be large and usually grow wherever freedom exists. period. Of course, the fact about the lowest percentage of the income gap in the USA in fact do live a far higher standard of living than most other countries.

The plain on which the income gap scale exists in the USA is a at much higher dimension than almost if not all other countries in the world. This is not bragging, it's a fair counterpoint.

That depends entirely on your definition of "freedom", if you mean "freedom to run one's business in practically any way one deems appropriate while protected by safeguards of intellectual property and nepotism that support monopolies and prevent new companies from entering the market", then you are correct that the income gap will widen wherever there is freedom. But currently you've got that sort of freedom practically everywhere there's a halfway stable state.
Incidentally, a widening income gap is an indicator for "trickle down economics" not working. Or at least not working sufficiently well. I don't think you've ever explicitly said what your opinion on that particular theory is, but your view on taxes is consistent with it.

[thegreekdog]

By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.

Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.

[karel]

well its better then nothing...so i'm for it

sounds like a lot of people are going to be laid off, in an already "worst economy since the great depression". How is that better than nothing? a job is way more important. somebody needs to pay those taxes! it's a double negative!

Cuz right now i cant get health coverage,so yes it does help me

[spurgistan]

Sallie Mae plans to lay off 2,500 workers since the federal government took away the Stafford Loan business. I'm sure many other banks will begin to do so as well since this provision was slid into the health care bill. Not only are they killing jobs, but I'm nearly certain they purposely included this change so that they can bribe people with debt forgiveness to expand the "public service" jobs. Obama did say he wants a civilian service as large as the military.

Poor, poor banks. Student loans (right now) are a moral hazard where the public guarantees the loans, but the private sector administers them and gets the profits. Socializing risk and privatizing profit is non-partisan corporate welfare.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.

Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.

How not? #2 has absolutely nothing to do with company profits, it had to do with taxes, that ALL of us pay. This rightfully shifts the cost to those who buy the products. That, it seems to me, is how markets are supposed to work, not through artificial subsidies.

And, I still do believe overall healthcare costs will be going down. Without a public option to set the "floor", I am not sure what will happen to insurance. However, the bill changed so much in the final hours before it became law that I am still looking into all the ramifications.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.

hmmm..so healthcare costs will decrease, while EVERYTHING else increases in price. I thought we weren't going to inflate ourselves out of our debt problem....

Gee, and here I thought you were in favor of a free market, which means that companies need to pay their own way and not rely upon taxpayer subsidied to support their workers. If AT & T needs to raise its prices, then it needs to raise it prices. Better the users of AT & T pay their benefits than the rest of us support a private company further through our taxes.

I just don't understand why, IF YOU PAY TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU AREN'T PAYING ENOUGH, and if you DON'T PAY TAXES, YOU SHOULD GET MORE.

In the last few years, coporations have been getting more and more out of our personnal taxes. Companies need to pay their own costs. If they cannot afford to pay for their employees, then they don't need to be in business... calling to we taxpayers to support them is idiotic, particularly when the CEOs of those companies and stockholders are making pretty decent profits.

All the talk about drunk drivers, but what about fat fucks? Or people with retard kids? We can find out there kid is retarded, so just abort them! It is the left wing solution, so why are these kids all on disability now? Oh thats right, it is a hand out. I am so glad I paid 50k in tax last year, to give it to earthquake victims in Haiti etc. This country is lost....congrats Adolf Pelosi you fucking traitor.

Welcome to the "enlightened" vision of the 20th century. Otherwise known as "Hitler's vision".

[thegreekdog]

By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.

Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.

How not? #2 has absolutely nothing to do with company profits, it had to do with taxes, that ALL of us pay. This rightfully shifts the cost to those who buy the products. That, it seems to me, is how markets are supposed to work, not through artificial subsidies.

And, I still do believe overall healthcare costs will be going down. Without a public option to set the "floor", I am not sure what will happen to insurance. However, the bill changed so much in the final hours before it became law that I am still looking into all the ramifications.

I probably didn't explain the original situation well enough (it's pretty complex, even for a tax issue). Essentially, and this is the important point, the federal government wanted companies to provide for post-retirement healthcare benefits to its workers. So, the federal government provided a subsidy (in the form of actual cash outlay from the government) and a deduction (also a federal subsidy in the form of a reduction in income, which would reduce taxes). So, in exchange for a company providing post-retirement benefits to its employees (which otherwise the government might have had to provide), the government gave 30% of the cost to the employer and permitted the employer to take a deduction for the cost of all monies given out.

Additionally, some people (like Player) see a deduction as an indirect federal subsidy. I would agree with that to an extent. However, there are some deductions that are simply given because they are costs to a company or individuals. For example, I may have $1 billion in receipts; but if my costs to generate those receipts are $999 million, should I be required to pay tax on the $1 billion or the $999 million?

On a related note, I'm pretty sure you dodged the issue Player.

[Snorri1234]

I've had this argument too many times to have it again. The income gap is always gong to widen. The people with the most money are pretty smart when it comes to money and even smarter about keeping it. However the income gap gas nothing to do with the poorest person being able to stand out and work hard and eventually set up a pretty good life for him/herself, if not their children. Oops, is that too priviledged? toungue in cheek

I don't think it's as black and white as either allowing parents to provide for their children or not allowing them to. Few would deny parents that right.

The fact the income gap is actually not rising in some industrialized nations (e.g., in the United Kingdom, I believe) disproves the idea that it must always grow. That's a fairly bleak outlook on the world, in fact, because a widening income gap translates as increasing poverty for ever vaster portions of the majority.

The Income gap will always be large and usually grow wherever freedom exists. period. Of course, the fact about the lowest percentage of the income gap in the USA in fact do live a far higher standard of living than most other countries.

The plain on which the income gap scale exists in the USA is a at much higher dimension than almost if not all other countries in the world. This is not bragging, it's a fair counterpoint.

That depends entirely on your definition of "freedom", if you mean "freedom to run one's business in practically any way one deems appropriate while protected by safeguards of intellectual property and nepotism that support monopolies and prevent new companies from entering the market", then you are correct that the income gap will widen wherever there is freedom. But currently you've got that sort of freedom practically everywhere there's a halfway stable state.
Incidentally, a widening income gap is an indicator for "trickle down economics" not working. Or at least not working sufficiently well. I don't think you've ever explicitly said what your opinion on that particular theory is, but your view on taxes is consistent with it.

You know what would be awesome? If there was a list of countries ranked by economic freedom. And which included rates for different types of freedom like investment freedom, bussines freedom and investment freedom and all that. Man, what if they had a site? That would make all these assertions about how the USA is all about the freedoms and how it also inexplicably is moving towards socialism/communist USSR checkable.

Welp, guess there isn't any Index of Economic Freedom.

[thegreekdog]

Did you read that index Snormeister?

[Snorri1234]

Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?

[thegreekdog]

Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?

So you're saying the US laws are onerous on investment, monetary and corruption freedom (and taxes... and government spending... take a look there). Be careful, this is a trap that will be used against you in ever single other thread.

[Snorri1234]

Did you read that index Snormeister?

No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.

[thegreekdog]

Did you read that index Snormeister?

No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.

Awesome. So, basically, you agree with me that the US needs to relax its restrictions on and imposition on, among other things, taxation, international trade, financial reporting and regulation, etc. That's really cool. Glad to have you on our side Snorri.

EDIT - Also, explain to me how universal healthcare is going to make the US "better" on this index. Because it's not. It will probably make the US go down in ranking (at least for purposes of this list).

[Snorri1234]

Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?

So you're saying the US laws are onerous on investment, monetary and corruption freedom (and taxes... and government spending... take a look there). Be careful, this is a trap that will be used against you in ever single other thread.

Are you crazy? I'm not saying that at all. Unlike you, I am able to read so in my short time of checking the site I was able to gather that any countries that rank above the 70 are decent enough in their laws that the can be classified as "Free". Meaning that they're all good places to live and start a bussines. It's nearly impossible to get higher on the list than Hongkong really.

If you have developed the ability to read between postings, you might notice that I was making a comparison. Using "ranks lower on" implies nothing but that objectively one is lower than the other. If I get a score of 90% on a test and you get 84% than I can say you got a lower score and that wouldn't mean you sucked so hard that your future children and grandchildren will feel the aftereffect.


My point is rather simple: For all the rhetoric about socialism and the gloriousness of capitalism that is the US is, there is very little indication that it is superbetterer than most other First World countries. If you keep on bragging about freedom I can simply point out that hey, we have freedoms like that too and sometimes moar of them, doesn't stop us from having universal healthcare though.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not crazy. I know exactly what you are trying to say. It just doesn't mesh well with some of your ideas in other threads (which I am too lazy to go find). For example, I believe you would say that the US does not restrict banks, credit card companies, housing lenders and the like in any meaningful fashion - yet there is that 75% (or whatever) sticking out there. I believe you would say the US tax system is pro-taxpayer (what with all those deductions and credits and subsidies), yet there is that bad score (and decreasing). You might say that the US government doesn't spend enough money... you see where I'm going with this?

On the one hand, you would like to limit your point to "the US isn't the capitalist freedom-loving society that is better than the world that PhatScotty and crew say it is." And I agree with that. However, on the other hand, you have your posts where you make the US out to be a "pro-business, anti-poor people place where the income disparity is horrendous." I don't think those statements are compatible.

In any event, I do know what you're saying - you're saying that you can have universal healthcare and still have the freedoms you enjoy today. So, I'm fine with you saying that (although I disagree) and I'm fine with you calling out the alarmists. I just think it's funny reading those indices in the context of other threads.

[Snorri1234]

Did you read that index Snormeister?

No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.

Awesome. So, basically, you agree with me that the US needs to relax its restrictions on and imposition on, among other things, taxation, international trade, financial reporting and regulation, etc. That's really cool. Glad to have you on our side Snorri.

EDIT - Also, explain to me how universal healthcare is going to make the US "better" on this index. Because it's not. It will probably make the US go down in ranking (at least for purposes of this list).

It's like my point is on the other side of the world or something. I have to ask if you're doing this on purpose because I seriously can't imagine anyone missing the point so hard.


There's this freedomstuff that we have. It's pretty cool, some countries have more of it than others. The problem however is that some people complain and complain about how universal healthcare kills those freedoms. Yet despite such convincing arguments the actual facts don't back up those assertions. It's perfectly doable to have universal healthcare and also your precious freedoms. I never said or even implied that having universal healthcare makes you go up in rankings (aside from those of healthrelated stuff), I simply said that it doesn't make you less free.

I made no statements regarding what I actually think about the various items on the list. I mean, plenty of them can't all be high anywhere but in city-states like Hong Kong. Tanzania has very high financial freedom and low government spending, because of that they also have incredible low bussiness and investment freedom because there is no government.

[thegreekdog]

It's on purpose. See above.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not crazy. I know exactly what you are trying to say. It just doesn't mesh well with some of your ideas in other threads (which I am too lazy to go find). For example, I believe you would say that the US does not restrict banks, credit card companies, housing lenders and the like in any meaningful fashion - yet there is that 75% (or whatever) sticking out there. I believe you would say the US tax system is pro-taxpayer (what with all those deductions and credits and subsidies), yet there is that bad score (and decreasing). You might say that the US government doesn't spend enough money... you see where I'm going with this?

On the one hand, you would like to limit your point to "the US isn't the capitalist freedom-loving society that is better than the world that PhatScotty and crew say it is." And I agree with that. However, on the other hand, you have your posts where you make the US out to be a "pro-business, anti-poor people place where the income disparity is horrendous." I don't think those statements are compatible.

Did you read the site?

Those statements are perfectly compatible. The index doesn't measure those things you think I would say. All it does is say how freedomy countries are with respect to the economy. You can't see how anti-poor people the governments are, you can't see how high the income disparity is. So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness". And you know, the US is that just like all other first world countries.


Those things you think I would say are funny though. Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes. The government spending catagory is of course a little off with the recent stimulus and bailouts and such, but I still wouldn't say the government doesn't spend enough money. Rather, it just spends too much on catagories where it shouldn't. (Military for example)

In any event, I do know what you're saying - you're saying that you can have universal healthcare and still have the freedoms you enjoy today. So, I'm fine with you saying that (although I disagree) and I'm fine with you calling out the alarmists. I just think it's funny reading those indices in the context of other threads.

Why the f*ck would you disagree? The freedoms that are measured in this index are the ones pertaining to how free-markety you are in general. How easy it is to have a bussines, how easy it is to invest, how free trade is, low inflation and all that.

Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.

[thegreekdog]

Did you read the site?

Yes.

The index doesn't measure those things you think I would say.

Yes it does.

So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness".

For all intents and purposes, "pro-business" means "anti-little person." Or at least that is what I have been led to believe (to be honest, mostly by others, not by you).

Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.

The 35% tax rate noted in the index is for corporations, which, again according to people on this site, are bad guys. So, how can we have a high tax rate on the bad guys yet still be pro-taxpayer? I'm not understanding that one.

a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.

This is not why we have high total tax revenue.

but I still wouldn't say the government doesn't spend enough money. Rather, it just spends too much on catagories where it shouldn't. (Military for example)

I agree.

Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.

According to Congress, healthcare influences two things - government spending and potentially taxes. It also influences overall healthcare costs (born by businesses and individuals). So, if we don't have universal healthcare, we bear a high healthcare cost, which affects businesses. And I don't think the cost of the current healthcare law, much less the potential universal healthcare cost would have a "minimal" effect on government spending or taxation.

[Snorri1234]

So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness".

For all intents and purposes, "pro-business" means "anti-little person." Or at least that is what I have been led to believe (to be honest, mostly by others, not by you).

Well not neccesarily. It's only that way when you favor corporations over the right of individuals. This index measures the other kind of pro-bussiness though, the ease of starting, maintaining and cancelling a bussiness, the freedom to spend and how much they can spend.

Regulations on environmental and individual things are not included here.

Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.

The 35% tax rate noted in the index is for corporations, which, again according to people on this site, are bad guys. So, how can we have a high tax rate on the bad guys yet still be pro-taxpayer? I'm not understanding that one.

Because corporations are still not people?

The CEO only pays a low tax over his income, but the profits made at the company are taxed relatively high. People who pay taxes (especially rich ones) are cuddled and loved by the US.

a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.

This is not why we have high total tax revenue.

Well that coupled with the higher corporate tax. I mean that there are a lot of state and city-taxes and such, and taxes on stuff and all that and such. It's still lower than ours though.

Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.

According to Congress, healthcare influences two things - government spending and potentially taxes. It also influences overall healthcare costs (born by businesses and individuals). So, if we don't have universal healthcare, we bear a high healthcare cost, which affects businesses. And I don't think the cost of the current healthcare law, much less the potential universal healthcare cost would have a "minimal" effect on government spending or taxation.

I mean in the context of the index. Healthcare tax and spending by the government is already quite high anyway. Other countries with universal healthcare don't have a much higher degree of government spending. (Hell, their governments spend less than your government currently does on healthcare)

[thegreekdog]

I guess I would say that I complain because my taxes are high, and I think out of proprtion to my income, assets, etc. And some people complain that rich people don't do their part, and I don't think that's true either. And I think this index bears my thoughts out, at least with respect to businesses. I think a lot of times US companies get a bad rap with respect to taxes and the like, especially with respect to other countries.

[karel]

just be happy that at least someone is trying to help people with no coverage,just be thankful for that.unlike the other party who could care less about americans... the party of NO.....fucking worthless republicans