The conundrum

[Big Fitz]

That's just plain ignorant.

Yes... you are.



Oh let's try and find the ultimate hard luck case and treat it as average. How about this. Mr. Diabetes is not provided health care through his employer, has earned an extra 5k a year and was able to purchase a plan that covers his needs on his own. Now all he has to do is get a new job that can cover his premium. And if he goes for Re-Insurance policies to buttress his needs, he can probably drop his costs even further.

But this is a bunch of hyperventilating conjecture based on a strawman argument.



Are you this blitheringly stupid???? Can we argue from logic for a split second here instead of some sort of altered state of emotional retardation? You know what? Feeling callous as I am right now, I hope he fucking does then if he believes he deserves someone else to pay for him. Probably thinks we owe him a car, house lottery winnings and a job sitting on his fat diabetic ass doing nothing till his feet rot off. Fucking please. If we're going to go off the deep end, have some style at least.



If you're so pure, you insure him. Then it's charity and I can respect that. You can't afford to? Fine, find a charity that will. You can't find one? Make one of your own and solicit donations for deadbeats. Just don't sit there telling me that the government gets to stick a gun in MY face to pay for this jackholes insurance when I MYSELF do not have it! And if you don't think a gun isn't being shoved in my face, try not paying your taxes. I AM one of the uninsured because I can't afford it. I WON'T go on a government plan because I won't feed the beast. I WILL be getting catastrophic coverage when I get my finances more stable in the next few months. It's called personal responsibility and integrity. You should try it sometime.

As for the whole "refused/declined/expelled" argument... What good is it for a business if you have no customers? Hmmm? Is the whole industry one giant fraud that will gladly take your money but the first time you need to dip into the pool, you're thrown out? Come on! Who do you PERSONALLY know that has had this happen to them? I doubt sincerely you could name one without lying to yourself, and by extension everyone else.

And you have the audacity to call me ignorant. Take your Thorazine and let the grownups talk. Obviously you are incapable of rational thought, only raving lunatic sound bites.

I was responding to your two-liner IGNORANT comments:

That is why I say we don't have a health care crisis. Not even a health insurance crisis.

We have a DEADBEAT Crisis.

But hey, thanks for the rant, which proved nothing.

But hey, thanks for the rant, which proved nothing.

Except your own foolishness.

 

[midcan5]

We want jobs, but we can get there faster with tax cuts rather than spending on the buds of politicians doing trickle down to us.

I hear this so often I wonder if there isn't some machine that has planted this in the minds of the conservatives? One's own experience should nullify this myth, didn't Reagan reduce taxes and the economy sank, didn't Bush Jr reduce taxes and the economy sank? I think the Bushs are the only presidents with negative employment figures. And didn't FDR and Clinton raise taxes and didn't the job picture improve? With all this information how can the same wrong statement be repeated over and over and over and .....



"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

Reagan eventually raised taxes but too late.
Firedoglake Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Its only a conundrum for those who think the government is the answer.

 

[code1211]

We want jobs, but we can get there faster with tax cuts rather than spending on the buds of politicians doing trickle down to us.

I hear this so often I wonder if there isn't some machine that has planted this in the minds of the conservatives? One's own experience should nullify this myth, didn't Reagan reduce taxes and the economy sank, didn't Bush Jr reduce taxes and the economy sank? I think the Bushs are the only presidents with negative employment figures. And didn't FDR and Clinton raise taxes and didn't the job picture improve? With all this information how can the same wrong statement be repeated over and over and over and .....



"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

Reagan eventually raised taxes but too late.
Firedoglake Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

During the highest growth period that you cite above, the USA's growth is measured from the bottom of the pit of the Depression. It continues through the period when the USA destroyed the rest of the world, re-built the rest of the world and finally had to compete with other countries on an even playing field.

You think the Reagan tax cuts sank the economy? You're deluded.

Clinton's tax policies had nothing to do at all with the prosperity of the 90's. The infusion of the computer into business and society, the .com's, the internet and the IT revolutions all occurring simutaneously did that. To his credit, Clintion didn't try to reach into it and screw it up. This, however, is a great example of how to stimulate an economy.

When SPENDING is stimulated, the economy heats up. This is why the stimulus of the Big 0 did nothing to stimulate: It did nothing to incent spending.

Want to compare recovery strategies? Compare the tax cuts by GWB to the Stimulus of the Big 0.

 

[MaggieMae]

We want jobs, but we can get there faster with tax cuts rather than spending on the buds of politicians doing trickle down to us.

I hear this so often I wonder if there isn't some machine that has planted this in the minds of the conservatives? One's own experience should nullify this myth, didn't Reagan reduce taxes and the economy sank, didn't Bush Jr reduce taxes and the economy sank? I think the Bushs are the only presidents with negative employment figures. And didn't FDR and Clinton raise taxes and didn't the job picture improve? With all this information how can the same wrong statement be repeated over and over and over and .....



"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

Reagan eventually raised taxes but too late.
Firedoglake Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

During the highest growth period that you cite above, the USA's growth is measured from the bottom of the pit of the Depression. It continues through the period when the USA destroyed the rest of the world, re-built the rest of the world and finally had to compete with other countries on an even playing field.

You think the Reagan tax cuts sank the economy? You're deluded.

Clinton's tax policies had nothing to do at all with the prosperity of the 90's. The infusion of the computer into business and society, the .com's, the internet and the IT revolutions all occurring simutaneously did that. To his credit, Clintion didn't try to reach into it and screw it up. This, however, is a great example of how to stimulate an economy.

When SPENDING is stimulated, the economy heats up. This is why the stimulus of the Big 0 did nothing to stimulate: It did nothing to incent spending.

Want to compare recovery strategies? Compare the tax cuts by GWB to the Stimulus of the Big 0.

The Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnant wages or reduced wages, lower working hours so overtime didn't have to be paid, the reduction or outright loss of benefits, and more manufacturing companies moving offshore creating a subclass somewhere between middle and lower. There was no "trickle down" to the middle class. Why do you think people went into debt up to their eyeballs using credit cards?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnant wages or reduced wages, lower working hours so overtime didn't have to be paid, the reduction or outright loss of benefits, and more manufacturing companies moving offshore creating a subclass somewhere between middle and lower. There was no "trickle down" to the middle class. Why do you think people went into debt up to their eyeballs using credit cards?

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

 

[MaggieMae]

The Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnant wages or reduced wages, lower working hours so overtime didn't have to be paid, the reduction or outright loss of benefits, and more manufacturing companies moving offshore creating a subclass somewhere between middle and lower. There was no "trickle down" to the middle class. Why do you think people went into debt up to their eyeballs using credit cards?

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

 

[Foxfyre]

The Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnant wages or reduced wages, lower working hours so overtime didn't have to be paid, the reduction or outright loss of benefits, and more manufacturing companies moving offshore creating a subclass somewhere between middle and lower. There was no "trickle down" to the middle class. Why do you think people went into debt up to their eyeballs using credit cards?

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

Okay, I've read yours along with the focus and emphasis of the organization and the members and credentials of its staff and board of directors. Now please compare those with the credentials, staff, board, emphasis of the NCPA and let's discuss which of the two has more credibility to actually know what they are talking about when they analyze this stuff.

 

[code1211]

The Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnant wages or reduced wages, lower working hours so overtime didn't have to be paid, the reduction or outright loss of benefits, and more manufacturing companies moving offshore creating a subclass somewhere between middle and lower. There was no "trickle down" to the middle class. Why do you think people went into debt up to their eyeballs using credit cards?

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

The problem with your historicals is that they do not occur in a vacuum. The world manufacturing competition was differnt in the 1930's , 1940's, 1950's and so so on. This world in 1998 was so different that there was virtually no similarity to 1928.

In the not to distant past, the education levels and transport capabilities of off shore nations could not compete with domestics. This is no longer true. Now the education has increased and the transport is easier.

In Indiana, there are no "American" nameplate cars assembled. In Indiana, Honda's, Toyotas and Suburus are assembled. If I want to buy local, I have to buy a Japanese nameplate. Comparing the world of 1928 or '58 or '78 or even 1998 to 2008 is just silly when speaking of comparitive global competitive pressures.

Thinking that you can reveal a truth by proclaiming untruths is also silly. Today's world's problems will not be solved by the solutions that created the current mess.

 

[MaggieMae]

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

Okay, I've read yours along with the focus and emphasis of the organization and the members and credentials of its staff and board of directors. Now please compare those with the credentials, staff, board, emphasis of the NCPA and let's discuss which of the two has more credibility to actually know what they are talking about when they analyze this stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure my guys are just lying.

Why do you think the information gathered by one group isn't as credible as another? Yours has this opener:

Welcome to the National Center for Policy Analysis "Taxes & Growth" website, where you can find the latest and most prominent research on free-market tax, economic and monetary policy. We present materials not just from our own library, but from respected journals, news outlets and other research institutes.

Why should I "believe" the selected journals, news outlets, etc., from which NCPA gathers its information over the one I produced which had a series of graphs proving the opposite points?

We could go back and forth for weeks on this posting information links galore, and I don't intend to do it. I have my strong feelings and you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

 

[MaggieMae]

Read this one-page summary of the results of the Bush tax cuts and the projections for them, Maggie. I have been unable to find a single credible source to dispute the numbers cited. Also the projections they cite beyond 2004 proved to be pretty darn accurate up until the housing bubble burst in 2008.

Taxes and Growth | Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

The problem with your historicals is that they do not occur in a vacuum. The world manufacturing competition was differnt in the 1930's , 1940's, 1950's and so so on. This world in 1998 was so different that there was virtually no similarity to 1928.

In the not to distant past, the education levels and transport capabilities of off shore nations could not compete with domestics. This is no longer true. Now the education has increased and the transport is easier.

In Indiana, there are no "American" nameplate cars assembled. In Indiana, Honda's, Toyotas and Suburus are assembled. If I want to buy local, I have to buy a Japanese nameplate. Comparing the world of 1928 or '58 or '78 or even 1998 to 2008 is just silly when speaking of comparitive global competitive pressures.

Thinking that you can reveal a truth by proclaiming untruths is also silly. Today's world's problems will not be solved by the solutions that created the current mess.

What are you talking about? The link I provided doesn't discuss "global competitiveness" and it doesn't mention transportation, only one segment of manufacturing. It's an overall picture of the change in landscape of earnings and taxes as they relate to GDP. But using your logic, then, can we dismiss all those glorious days of Reaganomics as being unrelated to the glorious days of Bushanomics which you guys seem to oddly believe is the case?

 

[Foxfyre]

Now read mine:

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

Okay, I've read yours along with the focus and emphasis of the organization and the members and credentials of its staff and board of directors. Now please compare those with the credentials, staff, board, emphasis of the NCPA and let's discuss which of the two has more credibility to actually know what they are talking about when they analyze this stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure my guys are just lying.

Why do you think the information gathered by one group isn't as credible as another? Yours has this opener:

Welcome to the National Center for Policy Analysis "Taxes & Growth" website, where you can find the latest and most prominent research on free-market tax, economic and monetary policy. We present materials not just from our own library, but from respected journals, news outlets and other research institutes.

Why should I "believe" the selected journals, news outlets, etc., from which NCPA gathers its information over the one I produced which had a series of graphs proving the opposite points?

We could go back and forth for weeks on this posting information links galore, and I don't intend to do it. I have my strong feelings and you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

Oh yeah it is much better to believe young, barely educated leftwing activists who make pretty little graphs and charts tied to no verifiable authority, but because those graphs and charts support what you want to believe, it's good enough for you.

I think I'll go with the credentialed experts who have not only prepared themselves to be qualified to analyze this stuff and who not only do their own research but back it up with articles and research results of their peers as well.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, I've read yours along with the focus and emphasis of the organization and the members and credentials of its staff and board of directors. Now please compare those with the credentials, staff, board, emphasis of the NCPA and let's discuss which of the two has more credibility to actually know what they are talking about when they analyze this stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure my guys are just lying.

Why do you think the information gathered by one group isn't as credible as another? Yours has this opener:

Welcome to the National Center for Policy Analysis "Taxes & Growth" website, where you can find the latest and most prominent research on free-market tax, economic and monetary policy. We present materials not just from our own library, but from respected journals, news outlets and other research institutes.

Why should I "believe" the selected journals, news outlets, etc., from which NCPA gathers its information over the one I produced which had a series of graphs proving the opposite points?

We could go back and forth for weeks on this posting information links galore, and I don't intend to do it. I have my strong feelings and you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

Oh yeah it is much better to believe young, barely educated leftwing activists who make pretty little graphs and charts tied to no verifiable authority, but because those graphs and charts support what you want to believe, it's good enough for you.

I think I'll go with the credentialed experts who have not only prepared themselves to be qualified to analyze this stuff and who not only do their own research but back it up with articles and research results of their peers as well.

Knock yourself out, sweetie. Ironically, you cons don't believe the older, credentialed and experienced academics either--if they happen to be Democrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, I'm sure my guys are just lying.

Why do you think the information gathered by one group isn't as credible as another? Yours has this opener:



Why should I "believe" the selected journals, news outlets, etc., from which NCPA gathers its information over the one I produced which had a series of graphs proving the opposite points?

We could go back and forth for weeks on this posting information links galore, and I don't intend to do it. I have my strong feelings and you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

Oh yeah it is much better to believe young, barely educated leftwing activists who make pretty little graphs and charts tied to no verifiable authority, but because those graphs and charts support what you want to believe, it's good enough for you.

I think I'll go with the credentialed experts who have not only prepared themselves to be qualified to analyze this stuff and who not only do their own research but back it up with articles and research results of their peers as well.

Knock yourself out, sweetie. Ironically, you cons don't believe the older, credentialed and experienced academics either--if they happen to be Democrats.

Some of those on the left I do believe. There are several that I read regularly and I do balance their POV against that from the right. I miss William Raspberry terribly. He was one of the best researched commentators out there and his scholarship was always impeccable. I didn't always agree with his conclusions, but he never failed to make me think through my POV more thoroughly and he made me a hell of a lot better researcher.

But honestly Maggie. You're too thoughtful to believe a bunch of leftwing activiist kids or rightwing activist kids have the financial expertise and have done their homework as well as a credentialed group who have devoted their entire resources and focus to do detailed analysis.

And see? I didn't even have to call you a name or argue ad hominem to say that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh yeah it is much better to believe young, barely educated leftwing activists who make pretty little graphs and charts tied to no verifiable authority, but because those graphs and charts support what you want to believe, it's good enough for you.

I think I'll go with the credentialed experts who have not only prepared themselves to be qualified to analyze this stuff and who not only do their own research but back it up with articles and research results of their peers as well.

Knock yourself out, sweetie. Ironically, you cons don't believe the older, credentialed and experienced academics either--if they happen to be Democrats.

Some of those on the left I do believe. There are several that I read regularly and I do balance their POV against that from the right. I miss William Raspberry terribly. He was one of the best researched commentators out there and his scholarship was always impeccable. I didn't always agree with his conclusions, but he never failed to make me think through my POV more thoroughly and he made me a hell of a lot better researcher.

But honestly Maggie. You're too thoughtful to believe a bunch of leftwing activiist kids or rightwing activist kids have the financial expertise and have done their homework as well as a credentialed group who have devoted their entire resources and focus to do detailed analysis.

And see? I didn't even have to call you a name or argue ad hominem to say that.

The GAO study said annual federal revenue losses tripled in real terms from $243 billion in 1974 to $728 billion in 2004. Tax expenditures peaked in 2002 at $783 billion before the full effects of the last recession cycled through the Internal Revenue Service.

For most of the last decade, revenue losses from tax expenditures were greater than the federal government's discretionary spending, the GAO said.

The biggest growth in recent years is the exclusion from income tax of employer-paid health insurance benefits, contributing $102.3 billion or 14 percent of the 2004 lost revenues. Deductability of home mortgage interest -- including second homes -- was the second biggest portion at $61.5 billion or 8.4 percent of the total.

A:\Economy - GAO Says Tax Cuts Aren't Economically Viable.htm

There are any number of previous expert analyses that were all red flags that the conservative's answer to all problems by cutting taxes is just as dangerous as spending. We're now feeling the effects of everything that was stuffed into the barrel since 2001.