Republican District Democratic Win

[HashiriyaS14]

The Reps left revenue inhancement off the table.

Revenue enhancement isnt off the table. Democrats form of revenue enhancement doesnt work, it will have a contrary effect, shrinking revenue further.

This is untrue.

There is NO conclusive link between stimulative tax cuts and increased tax revenues from any resultant economic growth. Zero.

If the government needs another $1, you need to have $1 worth of combined spending cuts or tax increases. A dollar in tax cuts is precisely the same as a dollar in spending, you're not getting one cent of either back.

[stebo0728]

Theres no more proof that raising taxes inreases revenue either. Historical statistics have shown both, which camp do you want to sit in? I happen to believe in the inverse theory. Believe in the linear theory if you like.

But regardless, as I've already said, if the inverse theory holds, the loss of revenue pales in comparison to the savings we'd get in throwing some major reform onto entitlement (assuming the reform drastically reduces entitlement rather than bloat it even more).

And I've cited before, it does nothing, so theres no point. See previous threads for any citations you may require. Im fairly sure they wont sway you, as they haven't to date.

[IBCoupe]

Obviously, it isn't 80 degrees and sunny by Hash. Fire away!

[telcoman]

Theres no more proof that raising taxes inreases revenue either. Historical statistics have shown both, which camp do you want to sit in? I happen to believe in the inverse theory. Believe in the linear theory if you like.

But regardless, as I've already said, if the inverse theory holds, the loss of revenue pales in comparison to the savings we'd get in throwing some major reform onto entitlement (assuming the reform drastically reduces entitlement rather than bloat it even more).

And I've cited before, it does nothing, so theres no point. See previous threads for any citations you may require. Im fairly sure they wont sway you, as they haven't to date.

Paul Krugman makes more sense than you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

[HashiriyaS14]

Theres no more proof that raising taxes inreases revenue either. Historical statistics have shown both, which camp do you want to sit in? I happen to believe in the inverse theory. Believe in the linear theory if you like.

Huh?

If you raise taxes by a dollar, you get another dollar. There's nothing to prove, it isn't a theory, it's math.

Higher tax rates (within reason) don't materially disincentivize people to work hard and make money. My friends in Holland who work in investment banking still put in 90hr weeks, even though they're paying 52% income taxes.

[AZhitman]

After spending a week with Andy (from Australia), I'm a little embarrassed that I've EVER complained about our taxes.

In the grand scheme of things, we in the US have NOTHING to complain about.

I'll do a separate thread. But yeah, raise taxes (...and cut entitlements, military, and foreign aid, etc).

[HashiriyaS14]

But yeah, raise taxes (...and cut entitlements, military, and foreign aid, etc).

^^
If I had to sum up my "platform", this would be it (less the foreign aid bit).

Missed you by a day down here man! Ozzie made me think you'd be here an extra day, lol. My bad.

[telcoman]

After spending a week with Andy (from Australia), I'm a little embarrassed that I've EVER complained about our taxes.

In the grand scheme of things, we in the US have NOTHING to complain about.

I'll do a separate thread. But yeah, raise taxes (...and cut entitlements, military, and foreign aid, etc).

I'm also a little embarrassed that the US is not number 1

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... e-contest/

"On a long list of quality-of-life indexes that measure things beyond the GDP yardstick — from income inequality and access to health care to life expectancy, infant mortality and poverty levels — the United States does not rank near the top.

So where is the best place to live? For the past 30 years, a U.S.-based magazine, International Living, has compiled a quality-of-life index based on cost of living, culture and leisure, economy, environment, freedom, health, infrastructure, safety and climate. France tops the list for the fifth year running. The United States comes in 7th."

[AZhitman]

There's only one problem with France.

The French.

[Cold_Zero]

Polls aside, I think you have to ask yourself, would you really want to live in any other country than the United States? France may look good on paper, but would you really want to live there. I am not trying to be jingoistic or to bash France. Two me, I would only consider (long and hard) living in two countries outside of the United States.

[stebo0728]

Back to the OP, I'm a bit unclear, is this election supposed to signify a new mandate upon the democrats? That america is finally going to purge itself of all the dirty republicans once and for all in the next election?

[IBCoupe]

If I'm reading the OP correctly, Telco is suggesting that this is a shot across the Republican bow regarding Medicare.

[telcoman]

If I'm reading the OP correctly, Telco is suggesting that this is a shot across the Republican bow regarding Medicare.

Thanks IB

At least someone understands me

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1251.story

http://www.timesrepublican.com/page/con ... l?nav=5005

http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/8204 ... alb-county

It is getting much harder for the right to keep fooling and scamming the American people

[stebo0728]

So in your estimation, this election signifies that America in fact WANTS to stay aboard an already sinking ship, and indeed bring more passengers aboard to perish?

[telcoman]

So in your estimation, this election signifies that America in fact WANTS to stay aboard an already sinking ship, and indeed bring more passengers aboard to perish?

No!

The American people are not going to accept the Republican plan in its present form
If the GOPis serious about negotiation then perhaps a means test, tax increases for those earning over $250k, removing the present wage cap on social security, and raising the full social security retirement age are some of the items that could be discussed and negotiated.

Getting rid of social security entirely or a voucher replacement

NO WAY

[stebo0728]

So in your estimation, this election signifies that America in fact WANTS to stay aboard an already sinking ship, and indeed bring more passengers aboard to perish?

No!

The American people are not going to accept the Republican plan in its present form
If the GOPis serious about negotiation then perhaps a means test, tax increases for those earning over $250k, removing the present wage cap on social security, and raising the full social security retirement age are some of the items that could be discussed and negotiated.

Getting rid of social security entirely or a voucher replacement

NO WAY

Ok so you do aknowledge something needs to be done. Good first step.

Im not sold that the Ryan plan is the answer myself, but then its not really a plan anyway, more of a blueprint that needs ironing out. Negotiation needs both sides to come to the table, with plans, and meet some where in the middle.

Means test? So everyone pays and the government decides who receives? Who makes the test? Sorry sounds a bit too much like "too each..from each.." If I dont need to collect, then as far as Im concerned I dont need to pay either.

Personally I'm almost to the point of saying "ok take the damned 250k +" increase, just to see you all eat crow when it fails to help the situation.

Wage cap is really the present "means test" wouldnt you say? As to say if someones wages are at a certain level, they're probably never gonna NEED to collect right, so why charge them over and above the average level when they're never gonna see it back?

Hey maybe vouchers will work, maybe not, but vouchers look alot more like American answers, single payer single buyer systems look alot more like European answers.

[telcoman]

No!

The American people are not going to accept the Republican plan in its present form
If the GOPis serious about negotiation then perhaps a means test, tax increases for those earning over $250k, removing the present wage cap on social security, and raising the full social security retirement age are some of the items that could be discussed and negotiated.

Getting rid of social security entirely or a voucher replacement

NO WAY

Ok so you do aknowledge something needs to be done. Good first step.

Im not sold that the Ryan plan is the answer myself, but then its not really a plan anyway, more of a blueprint that needs ironing out. Negotiation needs both sides to come to the table, with plans, and meet some where in the middle.

Means test? So everyone pays and the government decides who receives? Who makes the test? Sorry sounds a bit too much like "too each..from each.." If I dont need to collect, then as far as Im concerned I dont need to pay either.

Personally I'm almost to the point of saying "ok take the damned 250k +" increase, just to see you all eat crow when it fails to help the situation.

Wage cap is really the present "means test" wouldnt you say? As to say if someones wages are at a certain level, they're probably never gonna NEED to collect right, so why charge them over and above the average level when they're never gonna see it back?

Hey maybe vouchers will work, maybe not, but vouchers look alot more like American answers, single payer single buyer systems look alot more like European answers.

You pay car insurance and hope you never need to collect

You pay homeowners insurance and hope your home is never destroyed and need the insurance.

For those few fortunate enough to earn very high incomes then yes they pay or they can just go somewhere else like Eqypt, Yemen, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan ,etc to name a few.

[stebo0728]

Absurd analogy is absurd.

And that one token response addresses my entire last post in some way?

[telcoman]

Absurd analogy is absurd.

And that one token response addresses my entire last post in some way?

We will never understand each other

[stebo0728]

Not everyone pays car insurance, even when they are supposed to. Further, you only HAVE to pay for your liability if you own your vehicle. This mandate protects others on the road, not you. Maybe you have enough liquid wealth to buy another car should you wreck the one you have. In that case why pay 150 a month to someone for no reason?

Not everyone pays home owners insurance. You only HAVE to to protect the actual owner, the bank, and when the bank ceases to be the owner, then its your option. Again maybe you have enough liquid wealth to provide a new home should you lose the one you have.

What does paying a percentage of your income thats ABOVE the national average do for you? Does in ensure you will have better than average health care should you need Medicare some day? NO. Maybe everyone does need to pay, on a just in case basis, and the non collectors help the collectors in the end. BUT what good does it do to collect on 100% of someone income, especially when they make well over what they would ever be entitled to should they hit bottom and need to draw one day?

Again absurd analogy is absurd. I understand you full well, and its absurd to me.

[telcoman]

Again absurd analogy is absurd. I understand you full well, and its absurd to me.

Only to you.

You will be surprised at the election results next year

[IBCoupe]

Here's what's wrong with Ryan's Medicare plan:

It doesn't work. I swear that I've posted this somewhere here before, but I'll rehash it.

President Obama laid out a plan for using Medicare to help leverage down the price of healthcare: the government would gradually pay doctors and other healthcare providers less, in relation to the projected rise in prices. This would, in theory, save money, as the doctors and pharmaceuticals, etc. will adjust their prices accordingly.

Representative Ryan wants to do the same thing, only in a much more convoluted way, with far lower chances of success, and he wants to offset the savings from Medicare spending with tax cuts, for, at best, a revenue neutral measure. Here's the convolution:

1. Similar to President Obama's plan, Rep. Ryan proposes that we have Medicare gradually pay out less each year.
2. What's different, is that, instead of having those payments go directly to healthcare providers, Ryan wants to send those gradually smaller payments to seniors themselves.
3. Ryan believes that the seniors will then shop around for cheaper insurance (note: Medicare was created because insurance companies refused to sell insurance to seniors - it's too expensive. What would happen if Obamacare is repealed?)
4. Ryan then believes that insurance companies will take those smaller payments and pay doctors and other healthcare providers less, and those parties will subsequently adjust their prices accordingly. But ask yourself: what's the likelihood that seniors, as a diffuse group, no longer pooled with the help of the Federal Government into a huge bargaining power, will have any amount of influence over the premiums?

[telcoman]

And prior to the passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act insurance companies could deny coverage to anyone for preexisting conditions or for any reason.

[AZhitman]

Again absurd analogy is absurd. I understand you full well, and its absurd to me.

Only to you.

You will be surprised at the election results next year

No, your answer was useless - as usual.

Answer the question. If you can't, then say so. We all know when you're over your head, why not just admit it?

But your idiotic "nanny-boo-boo" nonsense about an election that hasn't happened is ignorant and proves nothing about the point being debated.

Contribute or leave.

[HashiriyaS14]

So in your estimation, this election signifies that America in fact WANTS to stay aboard an already sinking ship, and indeed bring more passengers aboard to perish?

^^
This is important to note.

The answer to this is YES.

The very nature of our system dictates that if there was popular support behind deep austerity measures to cut the deficit, we would have such measures. We'd have cut entitlements, defense, etc. We haven't, which means there is no such support.

Everyone likes to get all riled up about the deficit, but the bottom line is that the average citizen does not yet FEEL the effects of the debt. It is not causing them any pain, it's just a big scary number. WE have spent ourselves into our current predicament, and until there's a capital call, we're going to keep doing it.

The majority of Americans does not want to see any cut to entitlements, and if you're not in that majority, you still have to suck it up and pay for it until you either convince them otherwise or move elsewhere.

[stebo0728]

And prior to the passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act insurance companies could deny coverage to anyone for preexisting conditions or for any reason.

Pre-existing conditions are absurd as well. Burn your house down, or wreck your car, then go insure them the next day and tell me how that works out for you.

[stebo0728]

Here's what's wrong with Ryan's Medicare plan:

It doesn't work. I swear that I've posted this somewhere here before, but I'll rehash it.

President Obama laid out a plan for using Medicare to help leverage down the price of healthcare: the government would gradually pay doctors and other healthcare providers less, in relation to the projected rise in prices. This would, in theory, save money, as the doctors and pharmaceuticals, etc. will adjust their prices accordingly.

Representative Ryan wants to do the same thing, only in a much more convoluted way, with far lower chances of success, and he wants to offset the savings from Medicare spending with tax cuts, for, at best, a revenue neutral measure. Here's the convolution:

1. Similar to President Obama's plan, Rep. Ryan proposes that we have Medicare gradually pay out less each year.
2. What's different, is that, instead of having those payments go directly to healthcare providers, Ryan wants to send those gradually smaller payments to seniors themselves.
3. Ryan believes that the seniors will then shop around for cheaper insurance (note: Medicare was created because insurance companies refused to sell insurance to seniors - it's too expensive. What would happen if Obamacare is repealed?)
4. Ryan then believes that insurance companies will take those smaller payments and pay doctors and other healthcare providers less, and those parties will subsequently adjust their prices accordingly. But ask yourself: what's the likelihood that seniors, as a diffuse group, no longer pooled with the help of the Federal Government into a huge bargaining power, will have any amount of influence over the premiums?

Maybe YOU should be in Washington. Thats more of a rebuttal and answer to the Ryan plan than any of the left is throwing out. Thats why I said previously, Im not necessarily sold on the Ryan plan myself, but what other answers are being presented? Seriously presented? What I DO like about the Ryan plan is that is seeks market solutions, maybe the wrong ones, but they are market solutions, not government solutions. But then I dont expect the left to actually suggest a market solution, so at the end of the day we get no where.

[stebo0728]

^^
This is important to note.

The answer to this is YES.

The very nature of our system dictates that if there was popular support behind deep austerity measures to cut the deficit, we would have such measures. We'd have cut entitlements, defense, etc. We haven't, which means there is no such support.

Everyone likes to get all riled up about the deficit, but the bottom line is that the average citizen does not yet FEEL the effects of the debt. It is not causing them any pain, it's just a big scary number. WE have spent ourselves into our current predicament, and until there's a capital call, we're going to keep doing it.

The majority of Americans does not want to see any cut to entitlements, and if you're not in that majority, you still have to suck it up and pay for it until you either convince them otherwise or move elsewhere.

Very nicely stated. This is one of those times were we should be thankful that we have a republic and not a democracy. A wise electorate should see the problem and deal with it, regardless of what the "dumbmasses" have to say. And its not that the public is AGAINST reform, its just as you say, they dont feel the true effects of the debt we incur, so its not a big issue. The electorate needs to see the importance of the issue and deal with it, the constituency will see the importance at the end of the day.

So how do we make the public FEEL the stress of the situation?

[IBCoupe]

And prior to the passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act insurance companies could deny coverage to anyone for preexisting conditions or for any reason.

Pre-existing conditions are absurd as well. Burn your house down, or wreck your car, then go insure them the next day and tell me how that works out for you.

... Well, I'm sure they'd love to insure another body, but we don't yet have that kind of technology.

Did you just side with insurance companies on denying coverage to anybody that's been sick in the past?

[IBCoupe]

Maybe YOU should be in Washington. Thats more of a rebuttal and answer to the Ryan plan than any of the left is throwing out. Thats why I said previously, Im not necessarily sold on the Ryan plan myself, but what other answers are being presented? Seriously presented? What I DO like about the Ryan plan is that is seeks market solutions, maybe the wrong ones, but they are market solutions, not government solutions. But then I dont expect the left to actually suggest a market solution, so at the end of the day we get no where.

Obamacare would like to have a word with you.