Raising Taxes

[3rdnlng]

When are small businesses going to get some certainty?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704366104576255282893680792.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

 

No wonder they are afraid to hire.

[Magox]

I believe taxes for everyone should go back up to the pre Bush era sometime in the next 3-5 years. Ryans plan is a serious one because it addressed the long-term issue of Medicare, but it appears that Obama is willing to mix it up as well, and if this is the case that he also has a serious plan that deals with Medicare (and he better not use the health insurance reform bill as the plan) and S.S than I have to give him some serious points in addressing this matter heading into the 2012 elections. We'll see if it is a real plan or not.

 

Back to the taxes again, if you guys dont believe that we also need to raise more revenues to effectively reduce our debt then you're blinded by your partisanship. There HAS to be an increase in taxes not just from substantive point of view but also from a political one.

 

Do you really believe that the American public is going to allow there to JUST allow painful cuts while those "filthy" rich people get to keep more of what they earn? You have to know that this is how it is going to be framed and this argument WILL prevail because it is effective against the feeble minded.

 

I dont agree with class warfare policies, so raising one level of income earners taxes over another in my view is nonsensical. Having said that, taxing those rich as part of the solution will play well even with a decent bloc of the independent votes specially considering all the concessions that Obama has given into over the past six months.

 

Get use to it fellas, taxing those rich WILL be part of the end result.

[3rdnlng]

My biggest objection is the uncertainty of it all and the affect it has on the economy. With $5 gas on the horizon and the threat of raising taxes this economy could stumble even more than a couple years ago.

[DC Tom]

My biggest objection is the uncertainty of it all and the affect it has on the economy. With $5 gas on the horizon and the threat of raising taxes this economy could stumble even more than a couple years ago.

 

Nothing a trillion-dollar stimulus bill won't fix.

[3rdnlng]

Nothing a trillion-dollar stimulus bill won't fix.

 

Do you think the stimulus helped or will prove to be what prolonged the recession?

[Magox]

My biggest objection is the uncertainty of it all and the affect it has on the economy. With $5 gas on the horizon and the threat of raising taxes this economy could stumble even more than a couple years ago.

I believe that the sooner that we as a nation accept and adjust to a uncomfortably higher inflationary environment with a lower than normal growth rate over the next 5-7 years or so the better off we will be. There is no magic bullett solution to our debt problem, any actions that address this issue will be painful, which entails cutting government jobs and services which of course has a residual effect on the economy and an increase of taxes.

 

Also there is very little anyone can do to lower the price of gasoline or food during this time period and if prices do drop off significantly it wont be because of something good, it will be because some sort of bubble bursting that will create tsunami like ripple waves across the global economy.

[Wacka]

He's doing exactly what was done in the 30s. Following his god, FDR.

[Peace]

Nothing a trillion-dollar stimulus bill won't fix.

 

I want George Bush to send me another one of those random checks. What was awesome. Bring back 2008.

 

Ryan's Medicare reform was anything but serious. All he proposes is fixing the total spending and dumping the money to the states in block grants (instead of the direct physician reimbursement that happens now)--and leaving the states to figure things out. That won't fix jack squat, and likely in the end just create a ton more government bloat. Instead of having one big federal Medicare bloat, there will be 50 state government medicare oversight agencies. That's not reform: That's passing the buck, and doing it in a way that almost can't help but cost more. The only encouraging thing about Ryan's medicare reform plan is that he actually said the Medicare needs reform. The plan part is a joke. What we need to do it cut benefits substantially and focus on wellness and not doctor visits.

 

And I have no problem with raising taxes aggressively to pay off the debt, as long as it's done evenly and as long as there is something like $3-4 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Want to raise a trillion in taxes? OK, cut 3 in spending. And all of that had better go to the debt.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Peace

[UConn James]

Democrats past and present have shown they want no part of non-defense spending cuts.

 

And if they increase taxes in the name of [fill in the blank], they've just shown time and again that they'll spend it on something else.

 

We need good faith. Cut as much as can be reasonably cut to reduce the deficit, then ask for the difference and ensure in the language of the bill that it can only be applied to the deficit / national debt. I don't think people would have nearly as big an issue with this. Nobody wants this looming over our heads and the time to act is before Greece-style crisis hits (which we're not all that far away from).

 

Problem is, that Democrats get their snit in a snizzle over even a few billion in cuts --- $68B was a drop in the ocean. Like a figurative Real Housewife of D.C., they're happy to keep putting their frivolous crap on the country's credit card right up until the moment it's maxed out, and then they'll just try to transfer the balance to another card or raise the credit limit some more. They really don't give a **** about where the money comes from or what has to be done to get their money. All they know is they want the money so they can keep funding their habits.

 

You can fully expect that if and when they get majority control of budgeting again, they'll do the same thing with it as they did with Social Security monies. They'll put it in the general fund kitty and it won't be used where it was intended, and then we'll have an even bigger federal government to support.

[Magox]

I want George Bush to send me another one of those random checks. What was awesome. Bring back 2008.

 

Ryan's Medicare reform was anything but serious. All he proposes is fixing the total spending and dumping the money to the states in block grants (instead of the direct physician reimbursement that happens now)--and leaving the states to figure things out. That won't fix jack squat, and likely in the end just create a ton more government bloat. Instead of having one big federal Medicare bloat, there will be 50 state government medicare oversight agencies. That's not reform: That's passing the buck, and doing it in a way that almost can't help but cost more. The only encouraging thing about Ryan's medicare reform plan is that he actually said the Medicare needs reform. The plan part is a joke. What we need to do it cut benefits substantially and focus on wellness and not doctor visits.

And I have no problem with raising taxes aggressively to pay off the debt, as long as it's done evenly and as long as there is something like $3-4 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Want to raise a trillion in taxes? OK, cut 3 in spending. And all of that had better go to the debt.

The only thing random here are your words.

 

WHat you just said about Ryan's medicare plan is almost completely incorrect. First off the current Medicare plan is an open-ended entitlement program. The one Ryan proposes is changing it into a system that makes fixed payments to participants each year, payments that would rise at a predetermined rate. Now how is that passing costs off?

 

Let me make it easy for you to understand, because one of three things are happening here, either you aren't reading about whats going on here, or that your sources are incorrect or that you just simply aren't able to comprehend what it is that you are reading.

 

So here goes; The government would provide a set dollar payment towards your health care premium, and you'd cover the balance of your health care costs.

 

So the calculation that Ryan is making is that this will force consumers to shop more carefully for their medical services, which will create signicant price pressure demand from medical service providers. They the health providers know that there isn't an unlimited amount of dollars out there to pay for their services and that consumers (patients) will be on a much stricter budget, forcing prices to go down. This makes sense to me.

 

The plan also raises the age for eligibility from 65 to 67 between 2022 and 2033. It also reduces subsidies sharply for upper income earners, The top 2% of Medicare earners starting in 2022 would get just 30% of the average payment, and the next 6% would get half the average support payment.

 

Also the current medicare system increases the payouts by 7% annually, in Ryan's plans it is indexed to the rise of inflation. Which of course is MUCH lower than the current plan.

 

I'm being serious here Peace, where do you come up with this ****? You just say **** that simply isn't true. Now tell me again, how this isn't "cutting benefits".

 

I'm done with giving idiots explanations, that will be my last one with you. Learn to read up on things

Edited April 11, 2011 by Magox

[KD in CA]

Ryan's Medicare reform was anything but serious. All he proposes is fixing the total spending and dumping the money to the states in block grants (instead of the direct physician reimbursement that happens now)--and leaving the states to figure things out. That won't fix jack squat, and likely in the end just create a ton more government bloat. Instead of having one big federal Medicare bloat, there will be 50 state government medicare oversight agencies. That's not reform: That's passing the buck, and doing it in a way that almost can't help but cost more. The only encouraging thing about Ryan's medicare reform plan is that he actually said the Medicare needs reform. The plan part is a joke. What we need to do it cut benefits substantially and focus on wellness and not doctor visits.

But who's going to pay for my 12 prescription medications? It's not fair if it costs me more than a $5 co-pay.

 

 

 

And I have no problem with raising taxes aggressively to pay off the debt, as long as it's done evenly and as long as there is something like $3-4 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Want to raise a trillion in taxes? OK, cut 3 in spending. And all of that had better go to the debt.

Yes, yes and yes.

 

I remain opposed to any tax increase so long as government does nothing substantial to curb spending. And no, last week's window dressing doesn't even come close to being substantial.

[DC Tom]

You can fully expect that if and when they get majority control of budgeting again, they'll do the same thing with it as they did with Social Security monies. They'll put it in the general fund kitty and it won't be used where it was intended, and then we'll have an even bigger federal government to support.

 

That's the law, actually. The government has to borrow the surplus from SSA and spend it. All the Social Security surplus on hand is in the form of government bonds, stored in a building in West Virginia.

[Peace]

The only thing random here are your words.

 

[preaches from high horse]

 

I'm done with giving idiots explanations, that will be my last one with you. Learn to read up on things

 

Hey look: Magox found a cookie. You're right for once. I should have typed MediCAID, not MediCARE. Glad you got your panties in a wad over that typo? But of course, you probably didn't understand the Medicaid reform so you couldn't have just noted I mistyped it huh? Either that or you just decided it was time for you to once again ascend preach.

[Gary M]

And no, last week's window dressing doesn't even come close to being substantial.

 

I thought Nancy said the republicans were trying to starve kids and kill old people.?

 

 

But we are still funding this crap?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/sesame-street-pakistan_n_846775.html

[Magox]

Hey look: Magox found a cookie. You're right for once. I should have typed MediCAID, not MediCARE. Glad you got your panties in a wad over that typo? But of course, you probably didn't understand the Medicaid reform so you couldn't have just noted I mistyped it huh? Either that or you just decided it was time for you to once again ascend preach.

"typo" Ok BigCat

Edited April 11, 2011 by Magox

[DC Tom]

"typo" Ok BigCat

 

I routinely confuse the two, too. I usually just call them "the one for old people" and "the one for poor people".

 

I thought Nancy said the republicans were trying to starve kids and kill old people.?

 

If the Republicans are trying to kill old people, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. I mean, they're friggin' old people, for cryin' out loud. It's not like they're hale, hearty, and robust. Just push 'em down a flight of stairs.

[3rdnlng]

I routinely confuse the two, too. I usually just call them "the one for old people" and "the one for poor people".

 

 

 

If the Republicans are trying to kill old people, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. I mean, they're friggin' old people, for cryin' out loud. It's not like they're hale, hearty, and robust. Just push 'em down a flight of stairs.

 

Heads will roll.

[KD in CA]

If the Republicans are trying to kill old people, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. I mean, they're friggin' old people, for cryin' out loud. It's not like they're hale, hearty, and robust. Just push 'em down a flight of stairs.

 

 

Can they please start with Nancy Pelosi?

[Peace]

"typo" Ok BigCat

 

Right, especially since my post is 100% accurate if not for the aid/care issue. WTG boy wonder.

[Buftex]

He's doing exactly what was done in the 30s. Following his god, FDR.

 

 

There are certainly worse presidents than FDR, to emulate.