The line for the wall starts right behind her......
Azdak
Posts: 8,281 Member
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story
This is only tangentially related to the Mitt Romney campaign--it just so happened that the quote was made at one of his fundraisers. So I am not really bringing this up in the context of the 2012 election.
I'll just let her speak for herself:
I guarantee my new puppy leaves more "brains" in the back yard every morning than this woman has ever had in her life. And if "the nail ladies" are so stupid, how are they able to con rich people into paying $50 for a buff and a shine?
And as long as I am here, let me present another einstein:
This is the fantasy conceit that is preventing our country from taking meaningful action to address our problems (that and the fact that republicans are deliberating preventing any action until November). Rich people masturbating to their inflated sense of self-importance.
For an intelligent analysis, I would direct you to this article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality
Yes, Stiglitz is considered a "liberal". He also (like Paul Krugman) has a Nobel Prize (and don't even embarrass yourself by bringing up the Peace Prize comparison). IMO, that makes his views a lot more reliable than some lackey from the Cato Institute or other conservative puppet. (I'm not saying there aren't legitimate conservative counterpoints to Stiglitz and Krugman, but since about 2007, they have been almost 100% correct in their predictions and assessments -- it's not easy even finding independent conservative commentary, but I haven't seen anything more insightful than these two).
And before I go, let me make it clear: I have nothing against people who are rich. I don't complain about athlete salaries, movie prices, or billionaires in general. Despite losing my job 3 yrs ago and now making about 40% what I did before, and Mrs Azdak's (Republican) deadbeat ex-husband who owes us $40K in child support and who never saved a dime when his business was booming, either for his retirement or his kids' college, I am doing OK financially--as well as a wage-earner can do these days. Being rich has never been a big priority for me, so I don't resent those for whom it IS a priority, and thus have more than me. As a society, we have chosen a system (sort of like capitalism) that says there are going to be inequalities in wealth and income. I am a believer in the power of market dynamics.
However, I also feel that what has developed in this country since 1980 is NOT really capitalism and that, increasingly, market dynamics have been distorted and suppressed by the increased disparity -- both corporate and individual-- between the 'haves" and the "have nots". Corporate America has ALWAYS defined "free market" as having the "freedom" to rig the game so that they can't lose. (Actually there is no such thing as a "free market"--but that's a topic for another day). But now they have more power, more money, and more influence at their disposal.
All things being equal, I wouldn't give a crap about income disparity or corporate taxes. However, when you look over a 30 year stretch of history, and virtually ALL of the economic gains have gone to the top 20% income bracket, the vast majority of that to the top 1% (or even top .5%), that represents a flawed system. A consumer economy (i.e. our economy) cannot exist when 60% of the population has not seen a real income increase in 30 years, when the middle class is eroding. Even if the economic policies and structures that have led to this inequality were done with the best of intentions (i.e. the "trickle down" theory), or even unintentional, it's pretty obvious they are no longer working.
I do, however, have trouble suppressing my contempt for two fundamental ideas expressed by a lot of conservatives (some rich, some not).
One is the Randian wet dream fantasy that they are somehow the "job creators" and thus entitled to some exalted (exGALTED?) position in society. Hiring a landscaping company and begrudgingly giving a $5 tip to your doorman does not make you a "job creator".
The other is the idea that "I made it on my own--I didn't need any government handouts". Between the labors of others in history who have given us our world today, the structure and resources created by society (largely by government) and sheer random chance, nobody in this country makes a penny "on their own". Like it or not, we are all intertwined and dependent on one another.
This is only tangentially related to the Mitt Romney campaign--it just so happened that the quote was made at one of his fundraisers. So I am not really bringing this up in the context of the 2012 election.
I'll just let her speak for herself:
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
I guarantee my new puppy leaves more "brains" in the back yard every morning than this woman has ever had in her life. And if "the nail ladies" are so stupid, how are they able to con rich people into paying $50 for a buff and a shine?
And as long as I am here, let me present another einstein:
"It's not helping the economy to pit the people who are the engine of the economy against the people who rely on that engine," Michael Zambrelli said as the couple waited in their SUV for clearance into the Creeks shortly after the candidate's motorcade flew by and entered the pine-tree lined estate.
This is the fantasy conceit that is preventing our country from taking meaningful action to address our problems (that and the fact that republicans are deliberating preventing any action until November). Rich people masturbating to their inflated sense of self-importance.
For an intelligent analysis, I would direct you to this article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality
Yes, Stiglitz is considered a "liberal". He also (like Paul Krugman) has a Nobel Prize (and don't even embarrass yourself by bringing up the Peace Prize comparison). IMO, that makes his views a lot more reliable than some lackey from the Cato Institute or other conservative puppet. (I'm not saying there aren't legitimate conservative counterpoints to Stiglitz and Krugman, but since about 2007, they have been almost 100% correct in their predictions and assessments -- it's not easy even finding independent conservative commentary, but I haven't seen anything more insightful than these two).
And before I go, let me make it clear: I have nothing against people who are rich. I don't complain about athlete salaries, movie prices, or billionaires in general. Despite losing my job 3 yrs ago and now making about 40% what I did before, and Mrs Azdak's (Republican) deadbeat ex-husband who owes us $40K in child support and who never saved a dime when his business was booming, either for his retirement or his kids' college, I am doing OK financially--as well as a wage-earner can do these days. Being rich has never been a big priority for me, so I don't resent those for whom it IS a priority, and thus have more than me. As a society, we have chosen a system (sort of like capitalism) that says there are going to be inequalities in wealth and income. I am a believer in the power of market dynamics.
However, I also feel that what has developed in this country since 1980 is NOT really capitalism and that, increasingly, market dynamics have been distorted and suppressed by the increased disparity -- both corporate and individual-- between the 'haves" and the "have nots". Corporate America has ALWAYS defined "free market" as having the "freedom" to rig the game so that they can't lose. (Actually there is no such thing as a "free market"--but that's a topic for another day). But now they have more power, more money, and more influence at their disposal.
All things being equal, I wouldn't give a crap about income disparity or corporate taxes. However, when you look over a 30 year stretch of history, and virtually ALL of the economic gains have gone to the top 20% income bracket, the vast majority of that to the top 1% (or even top .5%), that represents a flawed system. A consumer economy (i.e. our economy) cannot exist when 60% of the population has not seen a real income increase in 30 years, when the middle class is eroding. Even if the economic policies and structures that have led to this inequality were done with the best of intentions (i.e. the "trickle down" theory), or even unintentional, it's pretty obvious they are no longer working.
I do, however, have trouble suppressing my contempt for two fundamental ideas expressed by a lot of conservatives (some rich, some not).
One is the Randian wet dream fantasy that they are somehow the "job creators" and thus entitled to some exalted (exGALTED?) position in society. Hiring a landscaping company and begrudgingly giving a $5 tip to your doorman does not make you a "job creator".
The other is the idea that "I made it on my own--I didn't need any government handouts". Between the labors of others in history who have given us our world today, the structure and resources created by society (largely by government) and sheer random chance, nobody in this country makes a penny "on their own". Like it or not, we are all intertwined and dependent on one another.
0
Replies
-
truth.0
-
Azdak 2012!0
-
I wish the upper middle class who falsely put themselves in the same boat as the billionaires would do a little research on countries in Latin America and elsewhere that have no middle class but merely very wealthy and very poor.
The tiny, incredibly wealthy minority are living with armed guards, armored limos, and in barricaded compounds, the rest live under the bootheel of military and paramilitary forces. I don't care how rich you are, you'd be crazy to want to raise your kids in a country like that. And the upper middle class are going to sink with the working class and the poor when it comes down to it anyway. They just think they're above it all.0 -
I wish the upper middle class who falsely put themselves in the same boat as the billionaires would do a little research on countries in Latin America and elsewhere that have no middle class but merely very wealthy and very poor.
The tiny, incredibly wealthy minority are living with armed guards, armored limos, and in barricaded compounds, the rest live under the bootheel of military and paramilitary forces. I don't care how rich you are, you'd be crazy to want to raise your kids in a country like that. And the upper middle class are going to sink with the working class and the poor when it comes down to it anyway. They just think they're above it all.
That's part of the point I am trying to make. As I said, I have no interest in an "anti rich" tirade. If the trickle down theory were true and giving rich people more helped everyone else earn more, I would be perfectly with giving them another tax break. Or two.
But it doesn't. And the widening increase in income disparity, concentration of wealth, decreased social and income mobility, and erosion of the middle class --regardless of how or why it is occurring--is bad for democracy, and harmful in the long run for everyone.0 -
In a pre-global economy, I might have bought into the whole trickle down theory of econonomics. But the truth is that the few jobs that tax breaks for the wealthy create end up going to places like communist China and third world countries. If a "job creator" wants a tax break, I think it should be in direct relation to the amount of americans he/she employ.0
-
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
I'd argue she's right, though I'd frame it differently. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who vote Republican, with the exception of those in the upper class financial arena, have been duped into thinking the GOP is their party. There is a definite caste within the strata of the GOP. And you know what? Those folks who are railing against the "liberal elite", the Average Joe of the Tea Party, I don't think they understand the impact of how the system works: against them. If they did, they wouldn't vote Republican.
Of course, the impact that the quote stems from, and the impact I see, are very different.0 -
In a pre-global economy, I might have bought into the whole trickle down theory of econonomics. But the truth is that the few jobs that tax breaks for the wealthy create end up going to places like communist China and third world countries. If a "job creator" wants a tax break, I think it should be in direct relation to the amount of americans he/she employ.
Adzuk / Adrian_Indy 2012!!!
-Debra0 -
In a pre-global economy, I might have bought into the whole trickle down theory of econonomics. But the truth is that the few jobs that tax breaks for the wealthy create end up going to places like communist China and third world countries. If a "job creator" wants a tax break, I think it should be in direct relation to the amount of americans he/she employ.
Adzuk / Adrian_Indy 2012!!!
-Debra
I like this plan.0 -
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
I'd argue she's right, though I'd frame it differently. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who vote Republican, with the exception of those in the upper class financial arena, have been duped into thinking the GOP is their party. There is a definite caste within the strata of the GOP. And you know what? Those folks who are railing against the "liberal elite", the Average Joe of the Tea Party, I don't think they understand the impact of how the system works: against them. If they did, they wouldn't vote Republican.
Of course, the impact that the quote stems from, and the impact I see, are very different.
The thing is is that both main parties have changed so much in even the past 50-60 years it's almost unreal... they don't stand for much of same things... either of them... Even the current Tea Party movement has changed by leaps and bounds from where they started in 2006 (yes, the actual movement is that old regardless of what the media likes to tout) that people can't remember what it actual stood for... and it all has been reduced to bickering and name calling... that now both Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same... a couple of 8 year olds on a playground fighting over the swings.0 -
"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
I'd argue she's right, though I'd frame it differently. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who vote Republican, with the exception of those in the upper class financial arena, have been duped into thinking the GOP is their party. There is a definite caste within the strata of the GOP. And you know what? Those folks who are railing against the "liberal elite", the Average Joe of the Tea Party, I don't think they understand the impact of how the system works: against them. If they did, they wouldn't vote Republican.
Of course, the impact that the quote stems from, and the impact I see, are very different.
The thing is is that both main parties have changed so much in even the past 50-60 years it's almost unreal... they don't stand for much of same things... either of them... Even the current Tea Party movement has changed by leaps and bounds from where they started in 2006 (yes, the actual movement is that old regardless of what the media likes to tout) that people can't remember what it actual stood for... and it all has been reduced to bickering and name calling... that now both Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same... a couple of 8 year olds on a playground fighting over the swings.
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Correct. They donate nearly the same amount of money to Democrats as to Republicans. Then want both major parties firmly in their pockets.
Correct, the new healthcare law is a gimme for a lot of companies who now won't have to raise wages and won't even have to pay part of the cost of their employees' medical bills. More profit for them, more taxes for us to make up for the fact that these giant corporations refuse to pay a living wage.
The Dems will have to try a lot harder than that to ever get my vote again.0 -
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.0 -
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Yup, and that wouldn't have happened if we went to a single-payer system, which was squashed across the board. Though I disagree that the new health care law will help big companies more than it is going to help little people. Health is pretty darn important. If it means that people won't die from curable diseases, I'd argue that it is indeed helping them more than Big Health.0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Correct. They donate nearly the same amount of money to Democrats as to Republicans. Then want both major parties firmly in their pockets.
Correct, the new healthcare law is a gimme for a lot of companies who now won't have to raise wages and won't even have to pay part of the cost of their employees' medical bills. More profit for them, more taxes for us to make up for the fact that these giant corporations refuse to pay a living wage.
The Dems will have to try a lot harder than that to ever get my vote again.
I Agree about reasons for donations. I don't so much mind increased profit as long as it is not at the expense of workers. I Agree that comapnies need to pay a living wage. I'm Not so sure about the increased taxes though. Tried to look up some information. Below is a link to where I found some info on taxes a credits..
(Still not sure a better bill could have passed the senate. I look forward to improvements, More could have been done, but like the direction the bill is going in.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-tax-hikes-vs-tax-breaks-which-is-greater/2012/07/06/gJQAx6AyPW_blog.html
Some excerpts related to taxes and credits:
The Affordable Care Act promises tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for individuals who earn between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The goal is to help people satisfy the individual mandate when they can’t afford insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid.
In addition, small businesses will qualify for tax credits if they have no more than 25 employees and average wages of $50,000 per year.
On the other hand, the health law imposes a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of adjusted gross income per adult, whichever is greater, beginning in 2014. The charge jumps to 2 percent or $325 per adult in 2015, and it rises again to 2.5 percent or $695 per adult in 2016.
It’s a stretch to say that any of these taxes will affect the middle class, even those that apply to individuals, such as the taxes on “Cadillac plans” and investment income or the higher payroll taxes.
The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans.0 -
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I am all for whatever social programs government wants to implement as long as those social programs are not paid with IOUs to China {or insert other lender here}. We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year. Say what you want about the rich (top 1%) but even if you double what they are paying in taxes we will still have a $900 BILLION deficit this year. If you doubled the taxes of every person (that pays taxes) in the country we would still have a ~$200 BILLION deficit. The government has a spending problem. How about they fix that?0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Correct. They donate nearly the same amount of money to Democrats as to Republicans. Then want both major parties firmly in their pockets.
Correct, the new healthcare law is a gimme for a lot of companies who now won't have to raise wages and won't even have to pay part of the cost of their employees' medical bills. More profit for them, more taxes for us to make up for the fact that these giant corporations refuse to pay a living wage.
The Dems will have to try a lot harder than that to ever get my vote again.
I Agree about reasons for donations. I don't so much mind increased profit as long as it is not at the expense of workers. I Agree that comapnies need to pay a living wage. I'm Not so sure about the increased taxes though. Tried to look up some information. Below is a link to where I found some info on taxes a credits..
(Still not sure a better bill could have passed the senate. I look forward to improvements, More could have been done, but like the direction the bill is going in.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-tax-hikes-vs-tax-breaks-which-is-greater/2012/07/06/gJQAx6AyPW_blog.html
Some excerpts related to taxes and credits:
The Affordable Care Act promises tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for individuals who earn between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The goal is to help people satisfy the individual mandate when they can’t afford insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid.
In addition, small businesses will qualify for tax credits if they have no more than 25 employees and average wages of $50,000 per year.
On the other hand, the health law imposes a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of adjusted gross income per adult, whichever is greater, beginning in 2014. The charge jumps to 2 percent or $325 per adult in 2015, and it rises again to 2.5 percent or $695 per adult in 2016.
It’s a stretch to say that any of these taxes will affect the middle class, even those that apply to individuals, such as the taxes on “Cadillac plans” and investment income or the higher payroll taxes.
The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans.
The shift in the burden from corporate to public comes in when you realize that corporations who provide health insurance for workers pay part of that cost. The worker pays the rest. If most companies eventually drop their employee coverage (in exchange for paying a fine that is much less than what they were paying to cover those workers) then the taxpayers will now be paying for the part employers once paid.
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.0 -
Republicans and Democrats both have their hands in my pocket. The difference between the two is that Democrats don't lie about it.
And only one party is going to give back, by way of education, healthcare, social programs, etc. The other is giving back to Exxon and Wall Street.
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Correct. They donate nearly the same amount of money to Democrats as to Republicans. Then want both major parties firmly in their pockets.
Correct, the new healthcare law is a gimme for a lot of companies who now won't have to raise wages and won't even have to pay part of the cost of their employees' medical bills. More profit for them, more taxes for us to make up for the fact that these giant corporations refuse to pay a living wage.
The Dems will have to try a lot harder than that to ever get my vote again.
I Agree about reasons for donations. I don't so much mind increased profit as long as it is not at the expense of workers. I Agree that comapnies need to pay a living wage. I'm Not so sure about the increased taxes though. Tried to look up some information. Below is a link to where I found some info on taxes a credits..
(Still not sure a better bill could have passed the senate. I look forward to improvements, More could have been done, but like the direction the bill is going in.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-tax-hikes-vs-tax-breaks-which-is-greater/2012/07/06/gJQAx6AyPW_blog.html
Some excerpts related to taxes and credits:
The Affordable Care Act promises tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for individuals who earn between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The goal is to help people satisfy the individual mandate when they can’t afford insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid.
In addition, small businesses will qualify for tax credits if they have no more than 25 employees and average wages of $50,000 per year.
On the other hand, the health law imposes a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of adjusted gross income per adult, whichever is greater, beginning in 2014. The charge jumps to 2 percent or $325 per adult in 2015, and it rises again to 2.5 percent or $695 per adult in 2016.
It’s a stretch to say that any of these taxes will affect the middle class, even those that apply to individuals, such as the taxes on “Cadillac plans” and investment income or the higher payroll taxes.
The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans.
The shift in the burden from corporate to public comes in when you realize that corporations who provide health insurance for workers pay part of that cost. The worker pays the rest. If most companies eventually drop their employee coverage (in exchange for paying a fine that is much less than what they were paying to cover those workers) then the taxpayers will now be paying for the part employers once paid.
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
Clearly the benevolent companies will give employees a raise based on the difference! :laugh:0 -
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?0
-
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I am all for whatever social programs government wants to implement as long as those social programs are not paid with IOUs to China {or insert other lender here}. We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year. Say what you want about the rich (top 1%) but even if you double what they are paying in taxes we will still have a $900 BILLION deficit this year. If you doubled the taxes of every person (that pays taxes) in the country we would still have a ~$200 BILLION deficit. The government has a spending problem. How about they fix that?
The US has been in debt a very long time. And it has continued to grow under every president. I agree that the number is really exhorbitant and kinda scary to look at. However, I believe that you are contending that we are unlikely to be debt free in one year or even a four year term. What i don't understand is why the urgency now. I do agree that it should be addressed and dealt with and plan should be put in place for it's systematic reduction.
But what makes it a priority now over job growth, health care, general economy, etc? And this is a true question, as it appears to be an important issue to you, why is it more important than the others? Could you be satisfied with a slower rate of growth versus an immediate reversal right now?
I just imagine if my husband was unemployed, we were struggling and our children were hungry, needed clothing, needed shelter needed to go to school etc, my first priority would not to use my savings and/or income to pay off all of my debt first. I would get basic needs met, make sure my husband had a job, then focus on paying OFF the debt. (
all of that hypothetical, and not sure if it is a good analogy, I just don't understand the hyperfocus on the debt all of a sudden) 0 -
Clearly the benevolent companies will give employees a raise based on the difference! :laugh:
Oh, well, in that case, I can stop worrying! Daddy Warbucks to the rescue! :laugh:0 -
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?
They would not pay a fine. Only those who can actually afford to purchase insurance and do not. Those who cannot afford it would get assistance to help them. I certaily don't think it's fair that the cost of my healthcare shoud increase because someone does not want to purchase insurance and abuses the system.
Instead of the focus on repealing, why not focus on making it even better. (not sure if you are advocating that, just ageneral statement)
Maybe someone can take this up for me. Gotta get some work done, but will be back later. I think the Obmacare thread/debate has a link that breaks down the law really well. maybe that would help?0 -
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I am all for whatever social programs government wants to implement as long as those social programs are not paid with IOUs to China {or insert other lender here}. We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year. Say what you want about the rich (top 1%) but even if you double what they are paying in taxes we will still have a $900 BILLION deficit this year. If you doubled the taxes of every person (that pays taxes) in the country we would still have a ~$200 BILLION deficit. The government has a spending problem. How about they fix that?
You can't fix it until you grow the economy. It's as simple as that. And you can't fix the economy by cutting spending. It didn't work in the 1930s, it's not working in Europe now, it won't work in America. If your city is burning down, you don't stop fighting the fire in the middle of the job because you are afraid the water bill will be too high.
I pointed out earlier that one of the reasons unemployment is still as high as it is is because of the sharp cuts in public sector jobs across the country. Not only do you have the job losses, but also the reduced economic activity of those who are unemployed and the increased expenses for things like food stamps, etc.
At a time like this, when the cost of credit for government borrowing is next to nothing, and the economy is still moribund, there are many economists who feel that it is irresponsible of anyone in the federal government to be talking about austerity measures--we have a golden opportunity to not only put people to work, but invest in badly-needed infrastructure rebuilding and repair.
It's not that deficits are not important, it's that we know there is no way to reduce deficits without restarting the economy. And by ignoring first principles and focusing on steps 2 or 3 before addressing step 1, you pretty much insure that the deficits will never be dealt with in a meaningful way.
Oh yeah--and ALL of the republican plans increase the deficit as well -- as much or more than any of Obama's budgets. So you end up in the same place (or worse) while continuing to destroy the middle class. Heckuva job, Paulie.0 -
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?
They would not pay a fine. Only those who can actually afford to purchase insurance and do not. Those who cannot afford it would get assistance to help them. I certaily don't think it's fair that the cost of my healthcare shoud increase because someone does not want to purchase insurance and abuses the system.
Instead of the focus on repealing, why not focus on making it even better. (not sure if you are advocating that, just ageneral statement)
Maybe someone can take this up for me. Gotta get some work done, but will be back later. I think the Obmacare thread/debate has a link that breaks down the law really well. maybe that would help?
I missed the part where those who can't afford it won't be fined. That's good to know, anyway. I was having a nightmare vision of prisons filling up for a minute there. Unlike credit card companies, the government can put you in jail for not paying up.
I don't want repeal, the law does have some good points, especially no longer allowing insurance companies to refuse coverage based on preexisting conditions.
However, this law should mandate heavy fines for companies that drop their employee insurance, not minor fines that make it worthwhile for them to drop their coverage.
It should also force for-profit healthcare providers and drug providers to do business with our government so we can have lower rates (they'll still make plenty of profit, as contractors who work with our military know too well).0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.0 -
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I disagree there. It's one thing to provide subsidies for a segment that needs stimulation and growth, such as green energy, a segment that is practically non-existent in this country. (For example, compare the land size vs. solar power of Spain and that of the US).
It's another thing altogether to provide massive breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world. There's a reason why those companies don't want Dems in office.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.0
