Obama=Carter??

[JerryLove]

What Congress and some Presidents need to be reminded of: They work for us. They aren't there to make every decision in our lives or make us pay for their personal agendas and ambitions.

Let's make sure we are clear here. Their "personal adgenda" where it exists is the same "wealth and power". The control therefore is the lobbying industry.

They are supposed to work for us, but they do not. They work for the people who pay them based on performance... and that's not us.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

The Senate is part of Congress.

I meant to the house and senate, but good post on your part.

 

[highfigh]

Palin supported taxing oil companies and handing out checks to Alaskans. Bush supported and implamented handing out checks to every American as part of his "stimulus" program. That stimulus was passed by a Repblican congress.

The banks and corporations were bailed out under a bill signed by Bush as well.

The first non-war record deficit spending I reacll was Reagan. It dropped tremendously (went into surplus for the first time in 50 years) under clinton, then jumped up to a new (unadjusted) record under GWB.

As to healthcare. More than 60% of American voters are in favor of, not just a public option, but a single payor system. More than 70% of doctors are similarly in favor.

Who might be stopping a national discussion? I would say the people screaming lies over and over at town-hall meetings and bombarding the press with fiction about "death panels" are the ones who are stopping a rational discourse on the real issues from occuring.

And, BTW, please find me the conservatives trying to get rid of medicare... that big government healthcare system. I don't see any of them.

That's called "capitalism". What would you like different that would have prevented the purchase of Hummer?

How many people will turn down free money?

The events during the term of most Presidents are usually not all their fault and now all due to their decisions or skills. Clinton didn't do it all, nor is he to be without credit for some things. Same with Bush or any other. Who was in Congress during the President's term- that will say a lot about who made what happen.

Re: Medicare- we all pay FICA, right? That partially funds Medicare/Medicaide but at a total of 2.9%, those who pay no taxes but still collect benefits from this program and government playing with the books, it's no wonder it's due to go bust in 2017.

None of the "experts" could keep the economic collapse to occur and you want me to come up with the answers?

Both parties deserve a lot of scorn and scrutiny. I'm not one of the people who thinks any particular party is close to perfect. I'm on the other end and I think they're all terrible at what they do unless they occasionally happen to do something right.

Town hall meetings are awfully small-scale and I would argue that discussion is hardly being stopped when we're engaged in it right now.

I posted it in another thread- people in the US used to have common goals but greed and philosophical differences have made some people completely opposed to working with those on "the other side". I just read that health care premiums have increased 87% since 2000 and we need to determine ALL of the reasons for this, not just jump into a bill that allows the government to run the show.

 

[highfigh]

California's problem is simple: it's easy to require new spending by voter referrendum and nigh-impossible to raise taxes.

In any system, when the person with the power to demand things has no responsability for the consequences, there will be chaos.

I've said this over Florida. Thesystem for fair property taxes is simple (assuming you want a non-progressive tax).

You find the average home value. You value all homes relative to that average home value and assign them a percentage (the average home would be 100%). Each year, you determine how much you want to collect from property taxes, divide by the number of homes, and chage each home-owner that multiplied by the percentage.

You don't reassess homes until they sell.

That way, a local jump in prices doesn't force someone out of their home (their taxes don't change because their percent isn't reevaluated), and a general rise effects all people equally (you can't end up paying next-to-zero taxes because your house was baught so long ago).

There's some slightly more complex algebra to input a homstead exemption, but it's not that hard.

Equitable taxing problem solved. Next.

We agree on the first part but as far as reassessment, that is done when a home is sold or when the municipality needs to, according to their by-laws. Where I am, if the assessment is outside of a specific range, all homes are reassessed. They just did drive-by reassessments last year. Every time they do this, they say our taxes won't increase and they never stay the same. I'l report back when I get my new bill but I expect it to go up again, even though the FMV has dropped.

Next to nothing taxes? Apparently, you're not familiar with the way Wisconsin operates.

 

[lsiberian]

Palin supported taxing oil companies and handing out checks to Alaskans. Bush supported and implamented handing out checks to every American as part of his "stimulus" program. That stimulus was passed by a Repblican congress.

The banks and corporations were bailed out under a bill signed by Bush as well.

The first non-war record deficit spending I reacll was Reagan. It dropped tremendously (went into surplus for the first time in 50 years) under clinton, then jumped up to a new (unadjusted) record under GWB.

As to healthcare. More than 60% of American voters are in favor of, not just a public option, but a single payor system. More than 70% of doctors are similarly in favor.

Who might be stopping a national discussion? I would say the people screaming lies over and over at town-hall meetings and bombarding the press with fiction about "death panels" are the ones who are stopping a rational discourse on the real issues from occuring.

And, BTW, please find me the conservatives trying to get rid of medicare... that big government healthcare system. I don't see any of them.

That's called "capitalism". What would you like different that would have prevented the purchase of Hummer?

Great post. However I think a public system is a bad idea. Requiring everyone to get health insurance by law is a better approach.

 

[jinjuku]

California needs to come up with a way to do something about Prop 13 (IIRC). That's the one that basically restricts property tax increases and unless a home is sold, the taxes and value don't have much to do with each other. Once the home is sold, the fair market value/selling price determine the tax rate but when people keep their houses, the state's property tax revenue doesn't keep up with expenses. Unfortunately, if the tax rate followed the values, many people wouldn't be able to afford to keep their homes. Everyone wants things but nobody wants to pay for them out of pocket and they're being careful to not say too much about the reason California is falling so far behind- illegals are tapping the state dry.

Yep, ages ago Californians voted to do away with property tax increases. They wonder why everyone moves there and then they can't fund anything

 

[JerryLove]

How many people will turn down free money?

Those who both believe it's wrong to take it, and who have more integrity than greed... but I'm having trouble relating your question to my post.

The events during the term of most Presidents are usually not all their fault and now all due to their decisions or skills. Clinton didn't do it all, nor is he to be without credit for some things. Same with Bush or any other. Who was in Congress during the President's term- that will say a lot about who made what happen.

You should perhaps post that in response to the original poster.

That said, Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. In fact, he didn't veto anything at all until there was a healthcare-related bill in, I believe, year 6.

Re: Medicare- we all pay FICA, right? That partially funds Medicare/Medicaide but at a total of 2.9%, those who pay no taxes but still collect benefits from this program and government playing with the books, it's no wonder it's due to go bust in 2017.

Actually, the deficit in medicare is because the money being taxed for medicare has been stolen every year for the past 20 to pay for other things.

But you didn't answer my question: where are the conservatives campaigning to abolish medicare?

None of the "experts" could keep the economic collapse to occur and you want me to come up with the answers?

If you are going to come up here and post in favor of certain policies, or against them, then I epxect you to have a rational why, yes.

Both parties deserve a lot of scorn and scrutiny. I'm not one of the people who thinks any particular party is close to perfect. I'm on the other end and I think they're all terrible at what they do unless they occasionally happen to do something right.

You won't get an argument from me.

Town hall meetings are awfully small-scale and I would argue that discussion is hardly being stopped when we're engaged in it right now.

One opportunity to for individuals to come and address their concerns with their representatives has been sabotoged.

I posted it in another thread- people in the US used to have common goals but greed and philosophical differences have made some people completely opposed to working with those on "the other side". I just read that health care premiums have increased 87% since 2000 and we need to determine ALL of the reasons for this, not just jump into a bill that allows the government to run the show.

No such bill exists, and so you are hacking a straw man.

There is a bill which would increase regulation on insurance, and would create a provision to enxure everyone and which, in some versions, would create a public option.

And it's worth noting that only US healthcare costs have jumped so signifigantly. Other countries have not had the same problem.

 

[JerryLove]

Great post. However I think a public system is a bad idea. Requiring everyone to get health insurance by law is a better approach.

I don't want to derail into a discussion of health-care (feel free to start another thread though and I'll post).

I think universal healtcare is something we really must do for a number of reasons.

Yes, that would entail everyone having healthcare.

Healthcare is not currently affordable by everyone. The costs are the highest in the world (by far). That problem will need to be addressed.

 

[lsiberian]

I don't see how Obama has succeeded at anything yet, but I will give him 4 years to see how he does.

Economies are a result of cycles. 8 years is a pretty common correction period.

 

[highfigh]

Those who both believe it's wrong to take it, and who have more integrity than greed... but I'm having trouble relating your question to my post.

You should perhaps post that in response to the original poster.

That said, Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. In fact, he didn't veto anything at all until there was a healthcare-related bill in, I believe, year 6.

Actually, the deficit in medicare is because the money being taxed for medicare has been stolen every year for the past 20 to pay for other things.

But you didn't answer my question: where are the conservatives campaigning to abolish medicare?

If you are going to come up here and post in favor of certain policies, or against them, then I epxect you to have a rational why, yes.

You won't get an argument from me.

One opportunity to for individuals to come and address their concerns with their representatives has been sabotoged.

No such bill exists, and so you are hacking a straw man.

There is a bill which would increase regulation on insurance, and would create a provision to enxure everyone and which, in some versions, would create a public option.

And it's worth noting that only US healthcare costs have jumped so signifigantly. Other countries have not had the same problem.

The free money was a reference to your comment about Palin taxing the oil companies and giving the money to Alaskans.

I was talking with a friend today and he said that the current plan would impose a 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care" policies because in their minds, only the very wealthy have them. Well, they don't know my friends' wife. She insists that they have as much coverage as possible and they pay no deductible or co-pays. For this, their family of four costs him over $12K/year for health insurance and at 40%, that would add at least $4800 to their bill. That's BS!

I told him to send her to the person who's responsible for this part of the plan, so he can find out that not only the very wealthy have plans like this. Congress has the same kind of plan, but they obviously won't be taxed on it because AFAIK, they don't pay for their own plan. Typical.

 

[JerryLove]

Economies are a result of cycles. 8 years is a pretty common correction period.

Economies are the results of actions. I can point you right at the multitude of short-term and unenlightened self-interest thinking that got us here today, but it's a long post.

 

[JerryLove]

The free money was a reference to your comment about Palin taxing the oil companies and giving the money to Alaskans.

It's not free. It's wealth redistribution. And it was supported by Palin. I didn't see Bush, McCain, Obama, or Hillary opposing it either; nor did any of the conservative talking heads argue against it that I saw.

I was talking with a friend today and he said that the current plan would impose a 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care" policies because in their minds, only the very wealthy have them.

Which current plan? I've not seen a 40% number anywhere.

Well, they don't know my friends' wife. She insists that they have as much coverage as possible and they pay no deductible or co-pays. For this, their family of four costs him over $12K/year for health insurance and at 40%, that would add at least $4800 to their bill. That's BS!

Is no-deductable and no-co-pay actually a good thing? It seems to encourage unneccessairy treatment.

Also, the plan I've seen sets the minimum for "gold plated" for family coverage at $21k/year.

$12k a year for no co-pay, no deductable, unlimited coverage? I must admit I'm a bit incredulious. That's shockingly cheap!

I told him to send her to the person who's responsible for this part of the plan, so he can find out that not only the very wealthy have plans like this. Congress has the same kind of plan, but they obviously won't be taxed on it because AFAIK, they don't pay for their own plan. Typical.

No one with employer-provided healthcare pays for their own plan... well, at least not all of it.

Here's an article opposing one of the more severe proposals on gold-plated plans. You'll notice it's not 40%, and the minimum is no where near $12k for a family. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/health/policy/21insure.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

 

[Nemo128]

On topic...

Obama = tall, black, young.

Carter = short, white, old.

Um...

 

[JerryLove]

But have you ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?!?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yep, ages ago Californians voted to do away with property tax increases. ...:

Not totally correct from what I hear. It goes up 2% each year unless the value is below assessed price which can happen if you buy high and the market sinks as it has but otherwise it keeps on going up, along with county assessments on top. Ask Jgarcia, he lives there

 

[highfigh]

It's not free. It's wealth redistribution. And it was supported by Palin. I didn't see Bush, McCain, Obama, or Hillary opposing it either; nor did any of the conservative talking heads argue against it that I saw.

Which current plan? I've not seen a 40% number anywhere.

Is no-deductable and no-co-pay actually a good thing? It seems to encourage unneccessairy treatment.

Also, the plan I've seen sets the minimum for "gold plated" for family coverage at $21k/year.

$12k a year for no co-pay, no deductable, unlimited coverage? I must admit I'm a bit incredulious. That's shockingly cheap!

No one with employer-provided healthcare pays for their own plan... well, at least not all of it.

Here's an article opposing one of the more severe proposals on gold-plated plans. You'll notice it's not 40%, and the minimum is no where near $12k for a family. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/health/policy/21insure.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

I didn't mean 'current', I meant proposed plan, sorry. He has been watching for this kind of thing and he's not a happy camper. He also doesn't get his info from only one source, on one side of the aisle, either.

Who said unlimited coverage? Sorry, but $12K isn't cheap in my book. OK, Baucus didn't propose 40%, it was 35% and it was on page 1 of your link. "Under the Baucus plan, insurers selling a plan costing more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would have to pay a 35 percent excise tax on the excess amount."

"No one with employer-provided healthcare pays for their own plan... well, at least not all of it."

Wanna bet? Unless they're in a strong union, I would bet that most people who have good employer provided health care have gotten that in lieu of more money. Not a terrible trade, but it does have a cost to the employee. A lot of employers are cutting their contribution altogether if they have a small company because there's no way they can get the same rates as a large group. Some industries are negotiating with carriers for a group rate the way retailers form buying groups so they can buy equipment, supplies, parts and accessories from major manufacturers at prices that are more competitive with bog box and large chains. Some are cutting more of their employees' hours to less than 30, which is a typical threshold for full time status and if they're part time, they don't have to pay benefits at all. They should, but it's not mandatory.

Either way, I wouldn't say "no one with employer-provided..." because I don't think that's accurate.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...or cause the national debt to increase to all-time highs, in the $9 Trillion neighborhood. ...

Have you checked the on line data for that national debt?
This is not current but interesting:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/11-07/1128busnationaldebt.pdf

Google can be great

When Bush came to power in 2001, it was about $5.65T. When Obama took office it was over $10T, almost doubled. Yep, it will be going up some more.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....
The first non-war record deficit spending I reacll was Reagan. It dropped tremendously (went into surplus for the first time in 50 years) under clinton, then jumped up to a new (unadjusted) record under GWB.

....

Who might be stopping a national discussion? ...?

When Reagan came into office the national debt was about $.98T and when Bush 1 left it was about $4T, a 400% in that 12 years. Bush 2 had almost a 100% increase.

One only has to follow the money who wants to stop the discussions, the ones who have the most to lose Probably the case all the time.

 

[mtrycrafts]

On topic...

Obama = tall, black, young.

Carter = short, white, old.

Um...

Was he old in 1976? Or just old-er than Obama He was also in the Navy, a nuke guy.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... The costs are the highest in the world (by far). That problem will need to be addressed.

And, statistically, the outcomes are not very good compared to other industrialized nations costing much less.