View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 5 of 111 FirstFirst 1234567891555105 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    With my head in the clouds
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iliekmudkipz View Post
    This thread makes me wish I cared more about politics...
    Knowing what your voting for is all that matters. Politics is just a topic for people to arguable intermittently about.

    Thanks to Steel Sector Graphics for the userbar and banner!


  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    I hope you do understand that it's different for a presidential candidate to want to beat his opponent, very different from being the leader of you party and proposing in 2010 (2 years before the election, when actual work needed to be done) that your number 1 goal is completely say no to everything the president proposed (before having heard any of it) and to alienate members of your party who do try to reach across the aisle. Yeah i'd call that not only un-american, but evil.
    I really don't see Mitch McConnell as the "leader of the party". He isn't even the leader of the Senate.

    I know Team D is going to overlook anything Obama does and exsaserbate everything Romney does, so there's no point in even going further with this.

    And to assign the failure of Congress exclusively due to gridlock overlooks that the Senate, controlled by Ds, has been also worthless. The fact is Obama hasn't been able to reach across the isle. Even within his own party, he's a hard communicator. As this Chris Matthews clip demonstrates, there are sitting Democratic members of Congress who haven't heard from the Obama administration since 2008.

    If he has a poor working relationship with his own party in Congress, it is no surprise he has a poor working relationship with Republicans.

    Again, having opposition who is dead set against you is not an excuse for getting nothing done the last two years. Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil, a very liberal Democrat in the House. George W Bush worked with Democrats throughout his term. Clinton worked with a GOP majority in his second term and passed four balanced budgets and welfare reform, even though they also impeached him.

    [quotehttp://www.americanprogress.org/issu...n-reform-plan/

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...l-it-help-you/

    http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion...arojasxml.html[/quote]

    All of those things are stuff he's already done or proposed. A large chunk of the student loan reform the ABC article talks about is just the typical Exective Branch stuff because they did pass a student loan reform bill, and just using an executive order to make some tweaks.

    So if he's done all this stuff, why does he need a second term? Why's he running? What more is he going to do?

    Obama administration shills and former Obama administration officials praise Obama's plan and make it look good! Shocker!

    Seriously though, Op-Eds are not reliable sources and the source the Op-Ed links is a former Obama administration official. It isn't that far of a stretch to think the books were cooked.

    Note its from the Washington Post which is conservative,
    Yes, Jonathan Capehart and Ezra Klein are well known for how conservative they are *eye roll*

    (I think you're getting Washington Post mixed up with the Washington Times)

    1.) Democrats are talking about protecting the already existing right to have an abortion.
    So by this logic, if a Republican wanted to say, defend marriage and advocate marriage between one man and one woman, which is reflected in law by DOMA, state level laws, and state constitutional amendments, that's okay, right? Because it is already existing, established law?

    No legal representation of same-sex couples (including the already existing ones)
    Same-sex couples have had legal troubles for decades. This is not new and any same-sex couple is doing themself a disservice if they don't know the law. Yes, it sucks and is unfair that they can't easily access benefits like married couples can, but this situation isn't exactly new.

    Of course, I must've missed the part where Obama says he'll repeal DOMA or legislate same-sex marriage. Hmmm....

    Replicating Arizona style immigration laws
    yes, Arizona's law is dumb. It is also dumb to do massive immigration deportation that Obama has done instead of going after the ones who are here living violent criminal lifestyles.

    which in their own words can't be preformed (even in rape and incest).
    Do you know why they believe that? Those who are pro-life believe all life is sacred. They believe the baby shouldn't be punished just because it was conceived through rape or incest.

    Auditing the federal reserve
    How is this a social issue? I missed this.

    Anyway, auditing the federal reserve enjoyed 89 Democratic yay votes. The Congressional Progressive Caucus had several members that joined the majority, including Co-Chair Raúl Grijalva and Dennis Kucinich. The CPC actually put the audit into motion back in 2009 due to their view of how horrible the TARP program was handled. Bernie Sanders championed the Audit the Fed bill in the Senate.

    No woman in combat
    Tthat's actual, active military policy. Been that way for a long time.

    No statehood for Washington D.C (really this was setted almost 100 years ago....)
    I don't think anyone has even been talking about DC statehood, for or against.
    Last edited by randomspot555; 8th September 2012 at 4:21 AM.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nope
    Posts
    546

    Default

    I personally like Romney, mostly because I enjoy his values and beliefs.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Try some math.

    http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...y-in-recovery/

    The economy was beginning to rebound in late 2008.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    On top of that, if you don't average in 2009 (which as I've stated you shouldn't due to the fact that Obama became president in January and it takes time to pass legislation, and time for that legislation to take effect) Obama created 4.5 million jobs, which already has outstripped Bush. (Note I'm assigning 2008-2009 job losses to Bush)
    Then you also need to take out the job losses from 2000 to 2003 before the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect, as those were not his fault either. Eitherway this time in Bush's career we were pulling down around 300,000 jobs a month, Obama? 90,000

    By the way average job creation for 2011, fell below 2010 levels, pointing to a SLOWING ECONOMY under Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Well considering the economy under reagan hadn't turned around until a Democratic congressman sponsored a bill that remedied the horrible failure that was ETRA, you can't really blame Obama for having one of the worst congresses in modern history. What's their approval rating again, -97%?

    On top of that Obama managed a similar level of GDP growth.

    Furthermore, both Obama and Reagan ended their recessions in 2 years. And Reagans unemployment rating after 4 years was only .5% higher than Obama's is today (and remember people continued to look for jobs under Reagan due to his cut to welfare, under Obama most unemployed have already begun to give up.

    What's so magical about Reagan? It honestly doesn't make sense to me.

    And I'll give you Bush and Clinton. But their recessions were nowhere near the catastrophic levels Obama and Reagan had to deal with.
    And yet Reagan was pulling in higher job creation numbers than Obama...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Yeah long term investments in education aren't going to fix the economy, but his work on reforming federal student aide might do well to prevent another bubble.
    The bubble is already there, the problem now becomes that the Government is going to lose the money when it pops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    I hope you do understand that it's different for a presidential candidate to want to beat his opponent, very different from being the leader of you party and proposing in 2010 (2 years before the election, when actual work needed to be done) that your number 1 goal is completely say no to everything the president proposed (before having heard any of it) and to alienate members of your party who do try to reach across the aisle. Yeah i'd call that not only un-american, but evil.
    No, what would be evil is declaring that the Iraq War is lost while Americans are dying on the field of battle still. THAT is evil.

    Furthermore even saying that, the Republicans still worked with Obama on a debt deal, one that Obama subsequently destroyed and nearly pushed us over the edge in default.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...R9aW_blog.html

    True it wouldn't generate 1 trillion, but 850 billion is pretty close. Note its from the Washington Post which is conservative, and tends to undervalue these numbers I've read other publications that do in fact place the number at 1 trillion. Thats neither here nor there, as this amounts a large increase in revenue.
    That is if all the revenue comes in, ending it for the wealthy just means they will be shifting it toward overseas accounts and tax loop holes. It is ignorant to believe we will see even close to that number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    1.) Democrats are talking about protecting the already existing right to have an abortion.
    If we are looking at their party platform they wish to expand that into Late Term Abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Replicating Arizona style immigration laws

    Mandatory Ultrasound for abortions, which in their own words can't be preformed (even in rape and incest).

    Auditing the federal reserve
    And the problem with those would be???

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    No statehood for Washington D.C (really this was setted almost 100 years ago....)
    Which is a mere Democratic ploy to get more Senators and Congressmen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    I mean its simple demographics, the baby-boomers are ageing, how can we just let them go without Medicare, and Medicaid. As Bill Clinton said, under the republicans there will be NO medicare. At least not as we know it, its infuriating that a party can

    1.) Make up a ludicrous fantasy about how Obamacare will result in the forced eunthanization of the elderly.

    2.) Proposed nearly eliminating Medicare.

    3.) Lie to old people and tell them they're the party that'll save medicare, and that Obama will destroy it.
    Medicare is already going to end as we know it, it pretty much has a decade or two more left in it, to believe otherwise is purely stupid. Romney and Ryan wish to turn it into more like Medicare Advantage which would prolong it, making it like a already popular program. So if you want to end it, truly end it, leave it alone like Obama is doing. It will be dead before any of us can use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Furthermore I cannot support a party that first, made it their NUMBER ****ING GODDAMN 1 priority, THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, to MAKE SURE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A ****ING DOUBT THAT BARACK OBAMA BE A 1 TERM PRESIDEMT not JOBS, not THE ECONOMY, not HEALTHCARE, not EVEN THEIR ******** SOCIAL ISSUES but making sure this guy doesn't get his job back. This isn't the tea party fringe group, this isn't Todd Akin. This is Newt Gringrich and Mitch McConnel the freaking intellectual leaders of the republican party.
    Is that why they went out on a limb on the debt deal? Including NEW TAXES on it as Obama asked for? Only to have Obama push for even higher taxes and kill the deal. But as I said before, if you want to see a evil party, point fingers at Harry Reid and his ilk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekage View Post
    Ending the Bush tax cuts, I've touched on this before, but this is should be priority number 1, it will generate the revenue needed to pay off the deficit, and hopefully create enough revenue to fix the ailing infrastructure in the Midwest, Eastern Seaboard and New England regions.
    Really ending the Bush Tax Cuts? Does that include the ones for the Middle Class and the Poor? As that is the only way you are going to get revenue in, going to those that cannot higher tax attorneys, but since you seem to have such a hard on for raising taxes, and quoting Bill Clinton, lets see what he says about it?

    “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground."

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/bill...9/20/id/411720

    We have the lowest workforce participation for men since pretty much the end of WW2, we cannot afford to start raising taxes.

    But lets look at your plan, you wish to
    A: End Medicare by stringing it out until it finally goes broke in a few decades.
    B: Hike taxes on the Middle and Lower class by ending the Bush Tax Cuts
    C: Kill jobs by ending the Bush Tax Cuts.

    If this is the Democratic Plan for the economy then we need to kick them out of office ASAP!
    Last edited by BigLutz; 8th September 2012 at 4:54 AM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Huh, read that last post without reading the username and it's a doozy of "blog posts over actual experts", partisan blindness, refusal to admit they're wrong about anything, and out-of-context quotes. Must be a BigLutz masterpiece!

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Try some math.
    http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...y-in-recovery/
    The economy was beginning to rebound in late 2008.
    That the second derivative of real GDP was prior to Obama's inauguration does not necessarily indicate that the economy was 'beginning to rebound'; it merely indicates that the economic collapse was running out of people to affect, which could indicate a rebound (assuming indicators weren't still negative in the following quarter). In Q1 2009, GDP was still falling, employment was still falling, quite literally every individual and firm was deleveraging or attempting to... every indicator was still decidedly negative (and based on quarterly levels of stimulus spending in 2009, would've remained so for at least Q2 and Q3).

    (Interesting to note that you had to find a blog post from someone with zero economic credentials to support your claim that the US economy was entering a period of recovery two quarters before GDP growth actually became positive.)

    Then you also need to take out the job losses from 2000 to 2003 before the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect, as those were not his fault either. Eitherway this time in Bush's career we were pulling down around 300,000 jobs a month, Obama? 90,000
    The "Bush tax cuts" went into effect in 2001 and had a near-immediate effect on consumer spending; you are conflating the whole of W's taxation policy with JGTRRA. Further, please remind this thread what industries that 2003 job growth was primarily focused in (and then tell me what started happening to those industries 4 years later).

    By the way average job creation for 2011, fell below 2010 levels, pointing to a SLOWING ECONOMY under Obama.
    Average job creation for 2011 fell below 2010 levels because a little thing called the US Census wasn't taking place that year. I know you like misrepresenting data and quotes and God knows what else to fit your own ends, but this is a bit much even for you.

    And yet Reagan was pulling in higher job creation numbers than Obama...
    It's almost pathetically easy to pull in high job creation numbers when you've just been gifted with an excuse for expansionary fiscal and monetary policy (the Volcker-engineered recession of 1982) midway into your first term... or are you neglecting to remember that still more jobs were created under one term of Jimmy Carter?

    No, what would be evil is declaring that the Iraq War is lost while Americans are dying on the field of battle still. THAT is evil.
    No, what would be evil is starting that war in the first place on false pretenses, conducting character assassination on any prominent public figure who dared to oppose it, and only beginning to change course after your political party was shellacked at the polls for it. (But then I suppose you would have had a hate-boner for Mike Mansfield if you were posting on a hypothetical proto-SPPF in the Sixties, so the fact that you're still attacking boring-*** Harry Reid for an out-of-context quote - made while the war was definitely militarily unwinnable to anyone with even a basic strategic acumen - really shouldn't surprise anyone.)

    Furthermore even saying that, the Republicans still worked with Obama on a debt deal, one that Obama subsequently destroyed
    Oh right, those 'negotiations' where absolutely 100% of the deal had to come from spending increases, and that downgrade (from one credit rating agency) that was explicitly stated to be the fault of the congressional GOP.

    In previous projections, it said, its “base case scenario” had assumed that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would expire at the end of 2012, while tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year would be extended. That, it said, would have reduced deficits about $950 billion over ten years.

    But the new S&P base case assumes that Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts. “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act,” S&P said.
    That is if all the revenue comes in, ending it for the wealthy just means they will be shifting it toward overseas accounts and tax loop holes. It is ignorant to believe we will see even close to that number.
    They've already 'shifted it toward overseas accounts and tax loopholes' even with historically low effective tax rates; it is farcical to claim on this basis that the current administration shouldn't even try to return taxation to OBRA-93 levels, as any revenue collection above current levels would go far toward closing the deficit.

    If we are looking at their party platform they wish to expand that into Late Term Abortions.
    Tell me more about how any of this refers to late-term abortions.

    And the problem with those would be???
    Well, at least in the case of mandatory ultrasound laws, they're 1) a gratuitous waste of money given that they are extremely likely to be found unconstitutional, and 2) an even more gratuitous example of government overreach than any single thing you'll be able to cite as the fault of Democrats.

    Which is a mere Democratic ploy to get more Senators and Congressmen.
    Ah yes, I forgot 'taxation without representation' only applied to people I agreed with politically.

    Medicare is already going to end as we know it, it pretty much has a decade or two more left in it, to believe otherwise is purely stupid. Romney and Ryan wish to turn it into more like Medicare Advantage which would prolong it, making it like a already popular program.
    Oh, so they wish to turn it into one of the more wasteful programs the government has enacted since 1990?

    Is that why they went out on a limb on the debt deal? Including NEW TAXES on it as Obama asked for? Only to have Obama push for even higher taxes and kill the deal.
    Once again, you solely blame Obama for something that was the fault of both sides' inability to actually compromise, including the ill-timed "Gang of Six" memo that prompted the counteroffer that nearly sent us past August 2 with no deal in the first place.

    And once again, you conflate "new taxes" with what Boehner proposed: the only hard number for revenues in his offer, "$800 billion", functioned solely as a maximum - implying that Congress could raise that much revenue solely through closing loopholes. Those are "new taxes" in the same sense that the DoD trigger in the Budget Control Act cuts defense spending outright rather than slowing its increase, which is to say "not really".

    Really ending the Bush Tax Cuts? Does that include the ones for the Middle Class and the Poor? As that is the only way you are going to get revenue in, going to those that cannot higher tax attorneys, but since you seem to have such a hard on for raising taxes, and quoting Bill Clinton, lets see what he says about it?

    “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground."
    You do realize, in this same quote, that Clinton says we shouldn't cut spending?

    We have the lowest workforce participation for men since pretty much the end of WW2, we cannot afford to start raising taxes.
    We have the lowest labour force participation rate for men since 1981, yes; but the academic literature on the effects of income taxation on labour markets points toward them being mixed at worst (and having near-zero effect at best).

    But lets look at your plan, you wish to
    A: End Medicare by stringing it out until it finally goes broke in a few decades.
    B: Hike taxes on the Middle and Lower class by ending the Bush Tax Cuts
    C: Kill jobs by ending the Bush Tax Cuts.
    A: You've already indicated you don't actually understand what you're talking about, given that you're supporting presidential candidates who intend to turn it into a larger version of the wasteful Medicare Part C.
    B: You seem to be completely discounting the idea that the 'upper class' will actually pay higher taxes on aggregate if EGTRRA and JGTRRA are allowed to expire, with absolutely no empirical basis behind this assertion.
    C: Most job creation is done by startups and large existing businesses, neither of which would be significantly marginally affected by raising just the top two brackets to 1993 levels, let alone raising all of them.

    If this is the Democratic Plan for the economy then we need to kick them out of office ASAP!
    If this is your idea of a functional debate, then I'm glad you don't hold office.
    Last edited by John Madden; 8th September 2012 at 10:16 AM. Reason: t-minus x hours until biglutz claims 'victory' on a semantic quibble
    last.fm
    facebook


    OFFICIAL ATTACK HUCKSTER OF SPP
    If you see this sig in the debate forum, you're definitely doing something wrong.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    That the second derivative of real GDP was prior to Obama's inauguration does not necessarily indicate that the economy was 'beginning to rebound'; it merely indicates that the economic collapse was running out of people to affect, which could indicate a rebound (assuming indicators weren't still negative in the following quarter). In Q1 2009, GDP was still falling, employment was still falling, quite literally every individual and firm was deleveraging or attempting to... every indicator was still decidedly negative (and based on quarterly levels of stimulus spending in 2009, would've remained so for at least Q2 and Q3).
    And yet we were already beginning to bottom out by Q4 2008, or did you fail to read that?

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    The "Bush tax cuts" went into effect in 2001 and had a near-immediate effect on consumer spending; you are conflating the whole of W's taxation policy with JGTRRA. Further, please remind this thread what industries that 2003 job growth was primarily focused in (and then tell me what started happening to those industries 4 years later).
    You forget to note that there was a second round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 that has a immediate effect in turning the economy around.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Average job creation for 2011 fell below 2010 levels because a little thing called the US Census wasn't taking place that year. I know you like misrepresenting data and quotes and God knows what else to fit your own ends, but this is a bit much even for you.
    You would think with a growing economy we would be able to make up such losses... guess Obama's economy isn't growing that well.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    No, what would be evil is starting that war in the first place on false pretenses, conducting character assassination on any prominent public figure who dared to oppose it, and only beginning to change course after your political party was shellacked at the polls for it. (But then I suppose you would have had a hate-boner for Mike Mansfield if you were posting on a hypothetical proto-SPPF in the Sixties, so the fact that you're still attacking boring-*** Harry Reid for an out-of-context quote - made while the war was definitely militarily unwinnable to anyone with even a basic strategic acumen - really shouldn't surprise anyone.)
    Out of quote context, lets see what he said shall we?

    "I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,"

    In the end the surge did accomplish something and the war was won.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Oh right, those 'negotiations' where absolutely 100% of the deal had to come from spending increases, and that downgrade (from one credit rating agency) that was explicitly stated to be the fault of the congressional GOP.
    100% of the deal had to come from spending increases? That would be a shock to the actual negotiators seeing how they Boehner was willing to include new taxes into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    They've already 'shifted it toward overseas accounts and tax loopholes' even with historically low effective tax rates; it is farcical to claim on this basis that the current administration shouldn't even try to return taxation to OBRA-93 levels, as any revenue collection above current levels would go far toward closing the deficit.
    I never said they would not get some of it back, but it is purely idiotic to believe they would get anywhere close to the projected revenue back

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Tell me more about how any of this refers to late-term abortions.
    I believe the quote is "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.”

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Well, at least in the case of mandatory ultrasound laws, they're 1) a gratuitous waste of money given that they are extremely likely to be found unconstitutional, and 2) an even more gratuitous example of government overreach than any single thing you'll be able to cite as the fault of Democrats.
    And yet they might very well cause the woman to decide not to have a abortion as it drives home the fact there is a real life inside of her.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Ah yes, I forgot 'taxation without representation' only applied to people I agreed with politically.
    Ironic seeing how the Constitution itself spells out that the area is not supposed to have voting rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    As opposed to having it completely destroyed? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Once again, you solely blame Obama for something that was the fault of both sides' inability to actually compromise, including the ill-timed "Gang of Six" memo that prompted the counteroffer that nearly sent us past August 2 with no deal in the first place.
    The Gang of Six memo was not something to take serious, and it was Obama's push that killed the deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    And once again, you conflate "new taxes" with what Boehner proposed: the only hard number for revenues in his offer, "$800 billion", functioned solely as a maximum - implying that Congress could raise that much revenue solely through closing loopholes. Those are "new taxes" in the same sense that the DoD trigger in the Budget Control Act cuts defense spending outright rather than slowing its increase, which is to say "not really".
    Seeing how closing loopholes would be raising the taxes on those that use those loopholes, congrats you have new taxes!

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You do realize, in this same quote, that Clinton says we shouldn't cut spending?
    And? The point is that even Clinton is saying that we should avoid raising taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    A: You've already indicated you don't actually understand what you're talking about, given that you're supporting presidential candidates who intend to turn it into a larger version of the wasteful Medicare Part C.
    Considering the waste and fraud that we deal with Medicare already, Medicare Part C would be a godsend.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    B: You seem to be completely discounting the idea that the 'upper class' will actually pay higher taxes on aggregate if EGTRRA and JGTRRA are allowed to expire, with absolutely no empirical basis behind this assertion.
    No I agree they will, but so will the middle and lower classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    C: Most job creation is done by startups and large existing businesses, neither of which would be significantly marginally affected by raising just the top two brackets to 1993 levels, let alone raising all of them.
    You fail to note many start ups and small businesses make over $250,000 before they begin to give out business costs, thus they would be affected by it.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 8th September 2012 at 2:23 PM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And yet we were already beginning to bottom out by Q4 2008, or did you fail to read that?
    You are talking past me. Bottoming out != beginning to recover, especially when that bottoming out is still followed by negative growth.

    You forget to note that there was a second round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 that has a immediate effect in turning the economy around.
    ...I explicitly referenced JGTRRA in that post. The most explicitly stimulative part of EGTRRA (round one), the tax rebates, came into effect for every 2000 taxpayer by the end of 2001.

    You would think with a growing economy we would be able to make up such losses... guess Obama's economy isn't growing that well.
    The "losses" you speak of were a temporary illusion brought upon by a decennial process. Jesus, did I not just post this?

    Out of quote context, lets see what he said shall we?

    "I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,"

    In the end the surge did accomplish something and the war was won.
    Yeah, let's take a look at what he actually said, shall we?

    "Madam President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi Government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution for Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous, and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue here on the Senate Floor.

    Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day. Now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began. As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice."
    Bear in mind (if that's even possible) that this quote was said after the Democratic caucus gained majorities in both chambers of Congress specifically on the basis of calling for a change of course in Iraq (in addition to dissatisfaction over handling of Katrina). Also try to bear in mind that the surge was on record on having resulted in a net zero change in death rates at the time Reid made those comments, and that even 75% of the troops were in favour of pulling out within a year.

    In the end, the surge did accomplish something: we were able to experience low enough levels of violence (after its disastrous first seven weeks) for just enough time to do what was decried as 'cutting and running' scant months earlier.

    100% of the deal had to come from spending increases? That would be a shock to the actual negotiators
    Actual negotiators like Eric Cantor, the second most powerful man in the House of Representatives, who was on record midway through negotiations as saying the GOP would not agree to any deal that raised a non-net zero amount of tax revenue (and that his party, by and large, backed this decision).

    I never said they would not get some of it back, but it is purely idiotic to believe they would get anywhere close to the projected revenue back
    On what empirical basis?

    I believe the quote is "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.”
    So saying they don't want government to "get in the way" means they want to go against Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Gonzales v. Carhart, and countless other SCOTUS precedent, not to mention the Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce committee who referred solely to "legal abortion" in a report released this past Thursday (during that same convention)? I don't buy it.

    And yet they might very well cause the woman to decide not to have a abortion as it drives home the fact there is a real life inside of her.
    So you're okay with gratuitous wastes of money if they achieve an end you're okay with. Once again, not surprised.

    Ironic seeing how the Constitution itself spells out that the area is not supposed to have voting rights.
    Article I, section 8 actually says nothing about the voting rights of the District itself, merely that Congress holds ultimate legislative authority over it:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
    The only reference to its voting rights comes from the 23rd Amendment, which itself was nearly repealed in the late '70s.

    As opposed to having it completely destroyed? Yes.
    So instead of having a scant amount of waste and still allegedly being doomed, you want to replace it with a program that has a substantial amount of waste... and which is still doomed.

    The Gang of Six memo was not something to take serious
    Neat, so Obama was supposed to completely ignore a bipartisan group of negotiators' recommendations which undercut his own revenue argument. No, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what was or was not to be "taken seriously" during the debt ceiling fiasco any more than you have already - you don't seem to be looking at House Majority Leader Cantor, Senate Minority Leader McConnell and the Tea Party explicitly and publicly stating they'd try to play chicken with default over the protests of just about every economist and sovereign government.

    Seeing how closing loopholes would be raising the taxes on those that use those loopholes, congrats you have new taxes!
    Except they aren't "new", an interpretation the Boehner camp seemed to agree with prior to taking its ball and going home.

    And?
    So you concede the point that immediate and deep spending cuts were and are a bad idea for an economy still in recovery? I don't think you know what contortions you're wrapping yourself into.

    Considering the waste and fraud that we deal with Medicare already, Medicare Part C would be a godsend.
    Interesting that you take this position given that a substantial portion of the 'waste and fraud' in Medicare COMES FROM Part C.

    No I agree they will, but so will the middle and lower classes.
    So you dispute that effective tax rates on the 'upper class' will actually rise because they'll move their money overseas or use still more loopholes, but you concede here that the effective tax rates on the 'upper class'... will actually rise.

    You fail to note many start ups and small businesses make over $250,000 before they begin to give out business costs, thus they would be affected by it.
    It doesn't matter if they make ≥$250,000 "before they begin to give out business costs", because that's not how taxation on businesses works. What they report after business costs, depreciation/amortization and interest (the EBT) is what's relevant to their 1040 forms, and scarcely 3% of all taxpayers with business income make that much or more.
    Last edited by John Madden; 8th September 2012 at 7:53 PM.
    last.fm
    facebook


    OFFICIAL ATTACK HUCKSTER OF SPP
    If you see this sig in the debate forum, you're definitely doing something wrong.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You are talking past me. Bottoming out != beginning to recover, especially when that bottoming out is still followed by negative growth.
    It is when it shows the ending of the decline, as this one clearly showed.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    ...I explicitly referenced JGTRRA in that post. The most explicitly stimulative part of EGTRRA (round one), the tax rebates, came into effect for every 2000 taxpayer by the end of 2001.
    Yes and would have helped our economy if we did not have that little terror attack at the end of 2001.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    The "losses" you speak of were a temporary illusion brought upon by a decennial process. Jesus, did I not just post this?
    Again as I said, you would think a growing economy, especially one making "4.5 Million" jobs under Obama could absorb those losses with out regressing. Jesus, did I not just post this?

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Bear in mind (if that's even possible) that this quote was said after the Democratic caucus gained majorities in both chambers of Congress specifically on the basis of calling for a change of course in Iraq (in addition to dissatisfaction over handling of Katrina). Also try to bear in mind that the surge was on record on having resulted in a net zero change in death rates at the time Reid made those comments.
    The surge was barely able to start by the time that Reid made the assinine statements, but he was already willing to wave the white flag and demoralize our troops by calling it a loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Actual negotiators like Eric Cantor, the second most powerful man in the House of Representatives, who was on record midway through negotiations as saying the GOP would not agree to any deal that raised a non-net zero amount of tax revenue (and that his party, by and large, backed this decision).
    Which is great except Bohener was in charge of the negotiations, Cantor wasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    On what empirical basis?
    The basis that those with the money would immediately seek tax shelters to save themselves from atleast some of the tax increases.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    So saying they don't want government to "get in the way" means they want to go against Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Gonzales v. Carhart, and countless other SCOTUS precedent, not to mention the Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce committee who referred solely to "legal abortion" in a report released this past Thursday (during that same convention)? I don't buy it.
    I believe all of those would be the Government getting in the way would it not? Unless you suddenly count the Supreme Court as being outside of Government, the same going for the Energy and Commerce committee. I can't believe I had to even say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    So you're okay with gratuitous wastes of money if they achieve an end you're okay with. Once again, not surprised.
    Yes because a ten minute ultrasound is such a massive waste of money...

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    So instead of having a scant amount of waste and still allegedly being doomed, you want to replace it with a program that has a substantial amount of waste... and which is still doomed.
    Scant amount of waste? Are you kidding me?

    The total number of fraud and waste is between 50 billion and 100 billion a year.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ear.aspx#page1

    By the way, Medicare is expected to go Bankrupt by 2026, and is a massive driver of our long term debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Neat, so Obama was supposed to completely ignore a bipartisan group of negotiators' recommendations which undercut his own revenue argument. No, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what was or was not to be "taken seriously" during the debt ceiling fiasco any more than you have already - you don't seem to be looking at House Majority Leader Cantor, Senate Minority Leader McConnell and the Tea Party explicitly and publicly stating they'd try to play chicken with default over the protests of just about every economist and sovereign government.
    Obama was also expressly cut out of the negotiations due to his inability to negotiate and his stupidity in wanting to raise more and more taxes. Did some of them "Play Chicken" with default? Yes, but neither in the beginning while negotiating with Obama actually planned to have it default, as noted in Woodward's book, much of it was a tactic to try and scare Obama so he would get off his high horse and actually negotiate.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Except they aren't "new", an interpretation the Boehner camp seemed to agree with prior to taking its ball and going home.
    They are new in that Obama was adding to the number already agreed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    So you concede the point that immediate and deep spending cuts were and are a bad idea for an economy still in recovery? I don't think you know what contortions you're wrapping yourself into.
    Never said they were, I was posting Bill Clinton's words showing that even Democrats believe that raising taxes in a down economy was a bad idea, I never said I agreed to everything he said.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Interesting that you take this position given that a substantial portion of the 'waste and fraud' in Medicare COMES FROM Part C.
    And yet Ryan's program would lower the cost of Medicare on the Government and prolong it.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    It doesn't matter if they make ≥$250,000 "before they begin to give out business costs", because that's not how taxation on businesses works. What they report after business costs, depreciation/amortization and interest (the EBT) is what's relevant to their 1040 forms, and scarcely 3% of all taxpayers with business income make that much or more.
    "Small business owners are often unfairly grouped with the extremely affluent because of the way they file their taxes. Due to their size, most small businesses file as sole proprietors or partnerships—in fact, approximately 85 percent of small businesses file income taxes as individuals. This means that, while a small business owner's personal income may seem large, the majority of the money is actually funneled directly back into the business."

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...all-businesses

    You were saying?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    It is when it shows the ending of the decline, as this one clearly showed.
    ...The "end of a decline" is characterized by net growth being above zero, not by the derivative of that growth being positive. Output still declines if it's declining by a lower rate.

    Yes and would have helped our economy if we did not have that little terror attack at the end of 2001.
    Acknowledging the existence of mitigating factors in one case, claiming it was clear that JGTRRA alone was driving Bush-era growth in the next.

    Again as I said, you would think a growing economy, especially one making "4.5 Million" jobs under Obama could absorb those losses with out regressing.
    You would think you wouldn't conflate the "4.5 million private sector jobs created" claim with overall job growth, which includes the public sector's hemorrhaging (and the temporary Census hiring itself) over the last 4 years. As usual, you're attacking the president because of an illusion.

    The surge was barely able to start by the time that Reid made the assinine statements, but he was already willing to wave the white flag and demoralize our troops by calling it a loss.
    The troops already wanted to get the hell out.

    Which is great except Bohener was in charge of the negotiations, Cantor wasn't.
    Which is a great deflection from the fact that the negotiations stalled only when Cantor started wielding his Congressional influence.

    The basis that those with the money would immediately seek tax shelters to save themselves from atleast some of the tax increases.
    I said empirical basis, not "**** BigLutz made up on the fly that sounds like an empirical basis". Give me academic papers, surveys of people who'd be affected by tax increases, anything other than the words of blog posters.

    I believe all of those would be the Government getting in the way would it not?
    I'm fairly sure "government getting in the way" would be something like H.R. 3, given that there hasn't been a serious attempt by Democrats to overturn 'partial-birth' abortion bans since the later of those SCOTUS rulings.

    Yes because a ten minute ultrasound is such a massive waste of money...
    Do you have any idea how much money a single ultrasound costs? Would you like to extrapolate this cost over the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed every year?

    Scant amount of waste? Are you kidding me?

    The total number of fraud and waste is between 50 billion and 100 billion a year.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ear.aspx#page1
    And now your text disagrees with the wording of your own links. Speaking of links...

    [...] improper payments in Medicare came to $47.9 billion ($34.3 billion in Medicare fee-for-service and $13.6 billion in Medicare Advantage).

    [...]

    But in addition, Issa wrongly suggests that all of the money from "improper payments" can be "saved" by simply not making those payments. In fact, a good portion of that money lacked proper documentation, but upon further investigation, may very well be verified as proper. In other words, even the $47.9 billion in improper payments in Medicare could not be fully recaptured for taxpayers.
    Further:

    But is the senator right? It depends on whether you trust NHCAA or Sparrow.

    Total Medicare outlays were $431 billion in 2007, or 19 percent of total national health care expenditures. If one assumes that fraud is equally prevalent in Medicare and other types of health care, that would make the Medicare share of the NHCAA's $68 billion fraud estimate $13 billion. And $13 billion in fraud divided by $431 billion in total Medicare outlays would be 3 percent of total Medicare expenditures — a far cry from Coburn's 20 percent. (A rate of 20 percent is "possible, but I don't think it's very plausible," Saccoccio said.)

    Skeptical that Medicare is only being defrauded at rates equal to the private sector? Let's triple that number to $39 billion in fraud. If you do that, it still comes out to 9 percent — less than half of what Coburn asserted it was.

    In the meantime, Coburn's dollar figure — $80 billion in fraud — would be no more accurate if the NHCAA is right. The group says there's $68 billion in fraud in all health care expenditures — but Coburn's figure for Medicare alone is bigger than that.

    However, by Sparrow's analysis, Coburn could indeed be in the ballpark. In an interview, Sparrow himself said the Coburn estimate is "perfectly plausible." He added that Coburn "doesn't know any more than you or I do."

    Because of the uncertainty about how much Medicare fraud actually exists, we think Coburn oversteps when he states definitively that "Medicare has at least $80 billion worth of fraud a year." Not only is there a statistical disagreement over how big the problem currently is, but all the key players also agree that there are simply no good data to rely on. Still, because Coburn's estimate is considered plausible by a leading academic in the field, we can't dismiss it as undeniably false. We rate Coburn's statement Half True.
    And while I'm still here...

    Bullet points!

    * 30% of all reported Medicare fraud in 2010 was attributable to Part C.
    * An unspecified amount of Medicare fraud claims turn out to be unsubstantiated (i.e., finding that no fraud actually occurred).
    * There actually isn't any way to measure Medicare/Medicaid fraud with any level of precision.
    * Fraud is a major problem, yes; it's also being explicitly combated by this administration. The scale of fraud, and of waste, is the point of contention here - and if the NHCAA's estimates taken with OMB figures are anywhere near the case, it's less of a problem in fee-for-service Medicare than in private insurance (and, being a handout to private insurers, Part C)

    By the way, Medicare is expected to go Bankrupt by 2026, and is a massive driver of our long term debt.
    You neglect to mention that the only reason Medicare Part A is expected to be depleted that year is because the PPACA extended its solvency by nine years.

    Obama was also expressly cut out of the negotiations due to his inability to negotiate and his stupidity in wanting to raise more and more taxes.
    BigLutz (or is it Richard Mourdock?) logic: trying to achieve more favourable terms is bad negotiation; compromise entails one side completely accepting the other's terms without offering their own.

    Did some of them "Play Chicken" with default? Yes,
    Did the S&P not base a large part of their credit downgrade on this fact? Did they not continuously critique the GOP for decisions made between March and August, including the aforementioned 'playing chicken'?

    They are new in that Obama was adding to the number already agreed upon.
    So first the tax reforms in Boehner's proposal were "new taxes", because they raise effective tax rates (except Boehner's camp didn't agree with that interpretation), and now they're new because of... completely different taxes.

    Never said they were, I was posting Bill Clinton's words showing that even Democrats believe that raising taxes in a down economy was a bad idea, I never said I agreed to everything he said.
    When you're quoting someone on economic effects (within an argument including the national debt), it kind of helps if that quote doesn't simultaneously undermine your debt argument (not to mention that Clinton is on record as supporting the tax increase on the highest bracket).

    And yet Ryan's program would lower the cost of Medicare on the Government and prolong it.
    Taking this at face value since you don't seem to be able to provide a citation that isn't a blog... it would also comically raise the cost of Medicare on everyone else, which you appear to not give a damn about.

    "Small business owners are often unfairly grouped with the extremely affluent because of the way they file their taxes. Due to their size, most small businesses file as sole proprietors or partnerships—in fact, approximately 85 percent of small businesses file income taxes as individuals. This means that, while a small business owner's personal income may seem large, the majority of the money is actually funneled directly back into the business."

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...all-businesses

    You were saying?
    Citing a blog post that dodges the actual point, instead of an analysis of the relevant forms for the tax code itself? Another BigLutz shocker.

    Intuit points out that 'net profit' (i.e., EBT) is what's actually taxed from the 1040 or 1120 forms. Actually reading the 1120 and 1040C forms bears this out. When tax statistics say 3% of business taxpayers report being in the ≥$250,000 bracket, they are respectively referring to lines 30 and 31 in each form.
    Last edited by John Madden; 8th September 2012 at 9:39 PM.
    last.fm
    facebook


    OFFICIAL ATTACK HUCKSTER OF SPP
    If you see this sig in the debate forum, you're definitely doing something wrong.

  10. #110

    Default

    1) I have never and will never vote. No one who wholly represents my personal opinions will ever stand a chance in a presidential election in this country and I don't like to undertake futile endeavors.

    With that said, if I were voting, I would probably vote for Obama. Some sort of independent candidate would probably be more along the lines of my political leanings (quite far left), but I recognize that no third party candidate will ever have a chance. Again, why partake in futile endeavors when my time can be better spent doing something productive and enjoyable?

    2) If I were ever to bother voting, I would vote on an individual basis rather than along party lines.

    3) No. I have had the ability to vote for some years now, and it has never once appealed to me.

    4) The economy is well and truly doomed so long as there's no effort for cooperation to actually figure out solutions to the nation's debts. So long as candidates on both sides of the aisle prefer to pad their pockets and pander to special interests instead of the people they are supposed to represent, nothing will change regardless of who ends up elected. Maybe when the bottom falls out, the representation might have a smidgeon of a chance to actually accomplish things when all of their donations are of about as much use as toilet paper.

    And to the final part of the question, while both Obama and Romney are likely (who am I kidding, are) bought and sold to special interests, socially I would be aligned with Obama far more than Romney.


    Lastly, I don't know whether any of my opinions are going to provoke responses or debate. Regardless, if they do, don't expect me to contribute to the thread any farther and respond back to you*. I just felt like throwing in my jaded two cents on the questions that were presented.

    * Back to those futile endeavors again, eh? What would yelling at you lot on an Internet forum accomplish?
    Last edited by ZombifiedHorror1031; 9th September 2012 at 12:29 AM. Reason: Fixed typos and spacing
    Shinies: (x2)
    Shinies are Not For Trade
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dream World Females:     Spoiler:- Click:

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Your basement
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    “The problem with elections is that anybody who wants an office badly enough to run for it probably shouldn’t have it."

    That's a quote by Orson Scott Card. I've found it all too relevant, seeing how our first president really didn't want to be president, but was a good candidate for the office nonetheless. Hyperpartisanship is all too apparent, and anyone who wants to try and be bipartisan will find that they won't get the support. Both Romney and Obama have changed their views to reflect the views of their party, because they need to to have any chance of being elected. As kindly pointed out by Jon Stuart, the Romney has voiced pro-choice views and said he is politically moderate, going back on those views years later to be elected. Obama voiced a desire to reach out to the other party, but no longer cares to try.

    And, of course, when our first president warns us of the danger of political parties, we ignore it, and look where we are.

    That guy on Mythbusters said, a quote commonly said by a friend of mine, "I reject your reality and substitute my own." But only a few of us actually substitute our own reality when rejecting other realities: we simply take a different someone's reality and use that as our reality to substitute. Republicans will substitute the usual Republican views, and Democrats will substitute the usual Democrat views.

    Because of my more meager number of years, I can't vote. But if I could, I would have no ****ing idea, due to the above.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombifiedHorror1031 View Post

    2) If I were ever to bother voting, I would vote on an individual basis rather than along party lines.
    This above user's quote reflects part of what I am saying. All too few people do what needs to be done: substituting their own reality, not somebody else's.
    Last edited by Skydra; 9th September 2012 at 12:42 AM.
    3DS FC (Pokemon X): 1848-1667-7668
    Friend safari is Ice with Snorunt, Beartic, and Cloyster. Looking for Dragon safaris, safaris with Whirlipede or Espurr, and Y-exclusive Mega Stones.

    Shiny Chains (D/P): Ralts, Magnemite, Beldum
    Targets: Shinx
    Shiny Chains (X/Y): None
    Targets: Clauncher/Clawitzer, Swirlix, Smeargle



  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    ...The "end of a decline" is characterized by net growth being above zero, not by the derivative of that growth being positive. Output still declines if it's declining by a lower rate.
    You know just glancing back, the argument was that we were beginning to rebound, that while we did not end the decline, the economy was beginning to turn around.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Acknowledging the existence of mitigating factors in one case, claiming it was clear that JGTRRA alone was driving Bush-era growth in the next.
    Then it is oddly coincidental that just after the JGTRRA, the economy began to rebound.

    • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
    • The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
    • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/22/...bout-tax-cuts/

    Oooo the evil Blog returns, cue Huckster whining about it

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You would think you wouldn't conflate the "4.5 million private sector jobs created" claim with overall job growth, which includes the public sector's hemorrhaging (and the temporary Census hiring itself) over the last 4 years. As usual, you're attacking the president because of an illusion.
    I am merely taking Obama's claim at face value, if he can grow 4.5 million jobs past the end of the recession of 2010 as Dems like to claim, then it should be more than enough to offset the numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    The troops already wanted to get the hell out.
    And that has what to do with Reid's comments? As having personal feelings is one thing, having your leader tell you that what you are doing is all for not and that you failed is a entirely different thing. Or is this just another pathetic red harring from you?

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Which is a great deflection from the fact that the negotiations stalled only when Cantor started wielding his Congressional influence.
    I believe the negotiations stalled when Obama asked for the new tax revenue, thus causing the Republicans to kill the deal, as they knew they could not pass a bill with any more tax revenue added in.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    I said empirical basis, not "**** BigLutz made up on the fly that sounds like an empirical basis". Give me academic papers, surveys of people who'd be affected by tax increases, anything other than the words of blog posters.
    Aww testy. Did I hurt your widdle feelings?

    Anyway lets look at France for example as they are experiencing the largest tax increase right now, what is happening? They are running.
    "We’re getting a lot of calls from high earners who are asking whether they should get out of France,” said Mr. Grandil, a partner at Altexis, which specializes in tax matters for corporations and the wealthy. “Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros are wondering whether to remain in a country where making money is not considered a good thing.”

    ...

    Many companies are studying contingency plans to move high-paid executives outside of France, according to consultants, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents — who are highly protective of their clients and decline to identify them by name. They say some executives and wealthy people have already packed up for destinations like Britain, Belgium, Switzerland and the United States, taking their taxable income with them.
    They also know of companies — start-ups and multinationals alike — that are delaying plans to invest in France or to move employees or new hires here.
    Whether many wealthy residents will actually leave and companies will change their plans, of course, remains to be seen. Some of the criticism could be political posturing, aimed at trying to dissuade the government from going through with the planned tax increase.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/48563456/


    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    I'm fairly sure "government getting in the way" would be something like H.R. 3, given that there hasn't been a serious attempt by Democrats to overturn 'partial-birth' abortion bans since the later of those SCOTUS rulings.
    Well the sentence "Do not want to let the Government get into the way of a woman and her doctor" has long been used as a excuse by those who do support Partial Birth Abortions/Late Term Abortions. Why our own President said the exact same thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YEvBTwDqBY

    Anything that prevents that "Choice" including supreme court rulings would be the Government meddling in "That Choice"

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Do you have any idea how much money a single ultrasound costs? Would you like to extrapolate this cost over the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed every year?
    Sure why don't you put evidence of how much a ultrasound for each abortion would be ( Cost of the electricity used for the machine + Cost of the Gel ), and then subtract it by the theoretical savings it would provide if say 20% of the women decided not to go through with the abortion procedure ( Not having to use the Syringe, not having to use the drug, not having to dispose of the biological waste ). I await your answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    * 30% of all reported Medicare fraud in 2010 was attributable to Part C.
    * An unspecified amount of Medicare fraud claims turn out to be unsubstantiated (i.e., finding that no fraud actually occurred).
    * There actually isn't any way to measure Medicare/Medicaid fraud with any level of precision.
    So which is it? Is it 30% or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    * Fraud is a major problem, yes; it's also being explicitly combated by this administration. The scale of fraud, and of waste, is the point of contention here - and if the NHCAA's estimates taken with OMB figures are anywhere near the case, it's less of a problem in fee-for-service Medicare than in private insurance (and, being a handout to private insurers, Part C)
    And yet I notice that you still have not addressed the main point, instead using a "red herring" on fraud to avoid it. And that is by switching to Medicare Part C, it will overall save money and prolong the savings.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You neglect to mention that the only reason Medicare Part A is expected to be depleted that year is because the PPACA extended its solvency by nine years.
    That is not a answer, it still goes bankrupt, be it in 4 years, 6 years, or 9 years. And it still becomes a massive driver of our debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You BigLutz (or is it Richard Mourdock?) logic: trying to achieve more favourable terms is bad negotiation; compromise entails one side completely accepting the other's terms without offering their own.
    Cute but if the Republicans were looking for pure compromise where they get everything, why did they choose Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats? And why then did they agree to count the "savings" by not continuing the Iraq war as a deficit reduction, when originally they said they would not agree to such a manipulation?

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You Did the S&P not base a large part of their credit downgrade on this fact? Did they not continuously critique the GOP for decisions made between March and August, including the aforementioned 'playing chicken'?
    Actually they said it was because Congress could not get to a deal, that includes the President's failures, and the Democrats and Republicans hammering out a deal. Lets not forget Obama played his own game of chicken against Congress, including threats of veto.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You So first the tax reforms in Boehner's proposal were "new taxes", because they raise effective tax rates (except Boehner's camp didn't agree with that interpretation), and now they're new because of... completely different taxes.
    I know this may be hard for you to understand, but there were the tax dollars they asked for and got, and then Obama decided to ask for more tax revenue. Where do you suggest we get that from?

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You When you're quoting someone on economic effects (within an argument including the national debt), it kind of helps if that quote doesn't simultaneously undermine your debt argument (not to mention that Clinton is on record as supporting the tax increase on the highest bracket).
    My argument was that even the lofty Bill Clinton that he seemed to quote repeatedly, was against raising taxes. I was not using him as the complete basis of my argument, but merely shoving Clinton back at him.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    You Taking this at face value since you don't seem to be able to provide a citation that isn't a blog... it would also comically raise the cost of Medicare on everyone else, which you appear to not give a damn about.
    I would rather have Medicare cost more, than not to have it at all, something you do not seem to give a damn about.

    But as to how it actually lowers to cost of Medicare? For one it sets up a plan that allows Insurance companies to bid on it, and then it takes the second lowest bid, while those seniors that choose the lowest bid get a rebate in their savings. Second it allows those that wish to stay on their current Medicare plan to do so, but if they choose a plan that costs more than the second lowest bid, they have to pay the difference. This does two things to save Medicare, for one it gets costs down by going with lower bids, and second it has seniors contribute more if they want more.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinio...yan/index.html

    Mind you the states are already asking HHS to shift into a program similar to this, by choosing the lowest bid insurance company to give insurance to their Medicare patients.

    "California is already counting on more than $500 million in budget savings from its own program this year. Most states are proposing to automatically enroll people. Those who don’t want to participate would need to opt out. The Massachusetts plan includes that feature."

    http://nationaljournal.com/healthcar...0120908?page=1

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Citing a blog post that dodges the actual point, instead of an analysis of the relevant forms for the tax code itself? Another BigLutz shocker.
    Getting butt hurt over a blog and not addressing the relevant information? Another huckster shocker.

    Quote Originally Posted by eBay Huckster View Post
    Citing Intuit points out that 'net profit' (i.e., EBT) is what's actually taxed from the 1040 or 1120 forms. Actually reading the 1120 and 1040C forms bears this out. When tax statistics say 3% of business taxpayers report being in the ≥$250,000 bracket, they are respectively referring to lines 30 and 31 in each form.
    Problem is that not everyone follows that, and thus end up paying the higher taxes.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 9th September 2012 at 8:55 PM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In the Canalava Mines
    Posts
    3,591

    Default

    After turning 18 last year, and seeing it's election year now, I was excited that I could finally vote in all my life. Too bad I got two "not-so-good" choices to pick from. My mom and my dad's family sides are all about voting for Romney, and they will.

    Most of my friends around the country are voting for either Obama or Romney (defined by where they live; western/eastern/southern).

    Who am I voting for? Truthfully, I want to vote, but not for any of the two candidates running. Right now, my family is making me vote, either way, and I'm going to register. Because I do want to vote, like I said, but it's not the best time of my life to get votes that really grinds my gears by being in the middle of two parties. Either one side hates me, or the other does, depending on who I choose.

    Eh. I might be voting for Romney. No, I don't like Romney, but not as much as Obama very recently. So yay, Romney wins me over by a micro bit. Still no better, though. Romney can't be worse than what we've been put through with Obama, right? Right?

    Well see how it goes once 2016 comes in. Let's survive, America.

    ~I just wanna feel that rhythm~
    Twitter @TrainerTrevino

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    where?
    Posts
    373

    Default

    I'll be voting for Obama.

    For one, he's the lesser of two evils. One of those is a big, big evil.

    For two, I'm of the mind that it took us 8 years to get into this mess, we aren't going to get out of it in 4, much less the 2 that everyone thought everything should be fixed in. Simply doesn't work that way.

    Third, any president is going to have a breaking in period, and that period is probably about 2 years. In that time, a new president learns a few things, like that the platform he ran on is actually terribly unrealistic, even if it was all great ideas and everyone went wild about them. A candidate is an idealist. A president must learn to be a realist. This was a big issue with this president, because from the time he got in, the right made it their entire goal to get him out of office, instead of trying to work with him or do their actual jobs. Romney will have a very similar battle, if not worse, if he is elected. Not only will he have the left to deal with, but they will also have the right when they find out that Romney was just pandering to them to get elected, and he turns out far more centrist than the Tea Party hoped for.

    So for a first term, I never really consider the first 2 years. It will take the remaining 6 years for any president to get any real progress made on anything. A second term won't have quite so much bickering I think, because the republicans aren't going to have to be worrying so much about getting him out of office, unless they go on a big campaign for impeachment, even when there's no currently impeachable offenses to speak of.

    Electing a new president would reset the progress we've made so far. We would slide back, which we cannot afford right now.

    Plus, Obama has made some progress in getting us out of wars. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Romney will throw us right back into another war within his first year.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    I'm not telling you!
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Lol I'm not old enough to vote. But seriously, I'd be surprised if Obama didn't win.
    Witness the truly awesome power of my claimed Gyarados.

    Gyarados used Epic Awesomeness!
    It's super effective!
    The foe lost OVER 9000% of its health!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Zero View Post
    "I moved my Monopoly piece forward two squares when nobody was looking, but I didn't use an action replay so it's totally okay"

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    Third, any president is going to have a breaking in period, and that period is probably about 2 years. In that time, a new president learns a few things, like that the platform he ran on is actually terribly unrealistic, even if it was all great ideas and everyone went wild about them. A candidate is an idealist. A president must learn to be a realist. This was a big issue with this president, because from the time he got in, the right made it their entire goal to get him out of office, instead of trying to work with him or do their actual jobs. Romney will have a very similar battle, if not worse, if he is elected. Not only will he have the left to deal with, but they will also have the right when they find out that Romney was just pandering to them to get elected, and he turns out far more centrist than the Tea Party hoped for.

    So for a first term, I never really consider the first 2 years.
    You realize that is the absolute worst argument you could make, as for the first 2 years Obama had one of the friendliest Congress' a President could ask for, he even had a Super Majority in the Senate and House for sometime, allowing for the Democrats to pass absolutely anything they wanted as long as their party remained unified. Obama was gifted with a Congress that was entirely devoted to one party rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    It will take the remaining 6 years for any president to get any real progress made on anything. A second term won't have quite so much bickering I think, because the republicans aren't going to have to be worrying so much about getting him out of office, unless they go on a big campaign for impeachment, even when there's no currently impeachable offenses to speak of.
    Except Obama will become a lame duck by the next mid term elections, although realistically if one looks at Bob Woodward's book, Obama is a lame duck already in that Congress refuses to work with him after the debt ceiling problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    Electing a new president would reset the progress we've made so far. We would slide back, which we cannot afford right now.
    And what progress would that be exactly? A divided House and Senate, both that will probably be taken over by Republicans, and even if not, Congress has no faith in the President right now. So how exactly is that progress?

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    Plus, Obama has made some progress in getting us out of wars. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Romney will throw us right back into another war within his first year.
    Kind of like how Obama did with Libya? By the way Obama got us out of Iraq following BUSH's timeline.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 9th September 2012 at 5:58 AM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    where?
    Posts
    373

    Default

    TBH I won't bother arguing with you b/c from what I've seen, you're incredibly closed minded and will not take anyone else's opinion but your own. (People like you are what ruin the debate forum)
    I'll Leave with this, if you're going to prove to someone their choice is wrong, you might want to go with a different argument other than "obama sucks" which is the mentality that last response was engrossed in.
    You might also want to prove how electing Romney is beneficial to the economy and the minorities.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    TBH I won't bother arguing with you b/c from what I've seen, you're incredibly closed minded and will not take anyone else's opinion but your own. (People like you are what ruin the debate forum)
    Last time I checked the debate forum was about offering competing opinions, if you cannot accept such a thing I would suggest leaving.

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    I'll Leave with this, if you're going to prove to someone their choice is wrong, you might want to go with a different argument other than "obama sucks" which is the mentality that last response was engrossed in.
    Really? I think I went far beyond than just "Obama sucks" and spoke about his loss of power and influence with the legislative branch after having practically a one party Congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    You might also want to prove how electing Romney is beneficial to the economy and the minorities.
    You said you would not even bother arguing so why would I waste the time for some one who does not even want to argue about it, but drums down my entire post to about two words?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Creeping on your boyfriend
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    I suppose if I was American I would vote for Obama. He really does feel like the lesser of two evils, and like Pesky Persian I support social issues more than economic issues when I look at the United States. It's just from what I see as an outsider there's a lot from that side of things that needs to be worked on. It all boils down to the fact that I wouldn't be comfortable having a man who doesn't seem to be in touch with the average American, nor who seems to respect the independence of women as president. I guess I'd be a little naive to Obama being able to fix things on an economical side, or that I just hold high faith.

    Romney also assaulted a gay student once. I know that I shouldn't resort to personal attacks for presidency but there's a point where I have to side eye someone.

    Star-Lord

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moogles View Post
    Romney also assaulted a gay student once. I know that I shouldn't resort to personal attacks for presidency but there's a point where I have to side eye someone.
    The family of that student said the story was false, though the specific former classmate was deceased and obviously can't speak for himself.

    I'd hardly want to be judged as an adult by all the stupid crap I did in middle school and high school.

    Also worth noting Obama bullied a girl when he was younger as well. He even wrote about it in one of his books.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Creeping on your boyfriend
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomspot555 View Post
    The family of that student said the story was false, though the specific former classmate was deceased and obviously can't speak for himself.
    Ah thank you. There's a point that I was skeptical of it myself (but it's hard to find anything refuting it within the circles I run in). I know it's silly, which is why I sort of put it in there, but I'm just a terribly judgmental person which I'll change eventually. I'll go look up the Obama story too.

    Star-Lord

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waffle_x_v View Post
    I
    Third, any president is going to have a breaking in period, and that period is probably about 2 years. In that time, a new president learns a few things, like that the platform he ran on is actually terribly unrealistic, even if it was all great ideas and everyone went wild about them. A candidate is an idealist. A president must learn to be a realist. This was a big issue with this president, because from the time he got in, the right made it their entire goal to get him out of office, instead of trying to work with him or do their actual jobs. Romney will have a very similar battle, if not worse, if he is elected. Not only will he have the left to deal with, but they will also have the right when they find out that Romney was just pandering to them to get elected, and he turns out far more centrist than the Tea Party hoped for.
    Having opposition is not something that just happened under Obama. Reagan had a Tip O'Neil led Democratic majority in the House for most (all?) of his term. Bill Clinton had a Republican House and Senate for most of his administration starting in 1994. George W Bush had a 50-50 split early on in his administration in the Senate, and Dem majorities in both Houses starting in 2007.

    Regardless of if you agree with the accomplishments of these divided governments they all made accomplishments. Having opposition does not excuse the Obama administration from inaction. They're just as much to blame for DC gridlock as Congress is.

    So for a first term, I never really consider the first 2 years. It will take the remaining 6 years for any president to get any real progress made on anything. A second term won't have quite so much bickering I think, because the republicans aren't going to have to be worrying so much about getting him out of office, unless they go on a big campaign for impeachment, even when there's no currently impeachable offenses to speak of.
    Throughout American history, first terms are almost always the terms where POTUS get the big stuff done. It is very rare that a second term gets the big ideas done. Remember George W Bush campaigned on reforming Social Security in 2004, but that plan crashed and burned in 2005-2006. He also tried pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, but the bill that passed was really watered down and honestly didn't do much to fix anything.

    Plus, Obama has made some progress in getting us out of wars. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Romney will throw us right back into another war within his first year.
    We're engaged in almost a dozen undeclared drone wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moogles View Post
    Ah thank you. There's a point that I was skeptical of it myself (but it's hard to find anything refuting it within the circles I run in). I know it's silly, which is why I sort of put it in there, but I'm just a terribly judgmental person which I'll change eventually. I'll go look up the Obama story too.
    I don't think the story is absolutely false. I am a big advocate for bullied children, but I also know not all bullies stay as arrogant, strong armed jerks. By the sound of the story, it seems more like a hazing ritual than anything else.

    In no way does this make what Romney did, if he did it, okay. But again, people do all kinds of stupid crap as teenagers. I'm not all that far removed from being a teenager (26 now) but I wouldn't want to be judged by some of the ignorant, dumb things I said or did as a teenager.
    I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Well the problems with Romney as a President is that he has multiple positions on MANY issues and it is quite inconsistent about his stances. He was at first pro-choice but suddenly he is pro-life, he didn't support Reagan before he supported him, against ACA despite wanting Obama to adopt the same health care from Massachusetts, etc. He has barely any core values which would make it harder for him to be trusted as President.

    Paul Ryan is a hypocrite because despite saying about his plans to reduce the deficit, he actually voted for programs that caused it to grow in the first place (Tax cuts, TARP, two wars, etc.). He also lied about being against the stimulus by Obama when he actually requested stimulus cash according to his letters. http://news.yahoo.com/presented-lett...-politics.html

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Well the problems with Romney as a President is that he has multiple positions on MANY issues and it is quite inconsistent about his stances. He was at first pro-choice but suddenly he is pro-life, he didn't support Reagan before he supported him, against ACA despite wanting Obama to adopt the same health care from Massachusetts, etc. He has barely any core values which would make it harder for him to be trusted as President.

    Paul Ryan is a hypocrite because despite saying about his plans to reduce the deficit, he actually voted for programs that caused it to grow in the first place (Tax cuts, TARP, two wars, etc.). He also lied about being against the stimulus by Obama when he actually requested stimulus cash according to his letters. http://news.yahoo.com/presented-lett...-politics.html
    And you could say absolutely the same thing about Obama from being against a Health Insurance Mandate to being for one, to being against Gay Marriage to being for it, to being for late term abortion to being against it, the list goes on and on and on.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Okay, bailing out after this post because I seriously have better things to do today (like sending emails asking to meet with professors, writing papers, and finalizing travel plans for next weekend).

    You know just glancing back, the argument was that we were beginning to rebound
    And beginning to rebound implies that indicators are actually, y'know, positive - something that was not the case until at least the second quarter of 2009. You don't say your weight's rebounding if you're losing it at a slower rate, because you're still losing weight.

    it is oddly coincidental that just after the JGTRRA, the economy began to rebound
    It's almost like some kind of bubble was inflating, perhaps inside some residential buildings. What's another word for those, again?

    I am merely taking Obama's claim at face value
    Right, which is why you're attacking this claim (about private sector job creation) for public-sector jobs being slashed to the bone at the state level over the last four years, in spite of the fact that he isn't at all responsible for them, and for the temporary public-sector Census jobs included in 2010's numbers.

    I believe the negotiations stalled when Obama asked for the new tax revenue
    I'm referring to the first segment of the debt ceiling fiasco **** show, when Cantor and McConnell started butting into the process in the first place. There's a reason it took until mid to late July for anything to get moving, and it sure wasn't because Boehner or Obama wanted to keep things stalled.

    Aww testy. Did I hurt your widdle feelings?
    Being that this is the 'Debate Forum', I should be reasonably able to expect competent debate - that includes citation of reliable sources. Congratulations: you did this in that post for the first time I can remember, though...

    Anyway lets look at France for example as they are experiencing the largest tax increase right now
    ...you probably shouldn't have tried to equalize the effects of a 34% marginal tax increase (on a bracket already paying 41%) with a 4.6% marginal increase on a bracket paying just 35%.

    So which is it?
    Around 30% or around "who the hell knows" percent, depending on who you believe.

    I notice that you still have not addressed the main point
    I'll get to that in about... right now.

    by switching to Medicare Part C, it will overall save money
    Oh, really?

    One good blog deserves another. And another.

    To counteract the selection effect on Medicare Advantage plans, a risk-adjustment process is used. The system has improved over time, but evidence suggests it still does not work very well. The models used to adjust payments can account for only about 10 percent of subsequent cost variation; even the most optimistic estimates suggest they could account for only 20 percent to 25 percent of the variation. This gap allows plans that can better predict beneficiary costs to game the system by selecting beneficiaries who are expected to cost much less than their risk-adjusted payments. (Plans do not always want the least-expensive beneficiaries, but rather those who are the least expensive compared with their risk-adjusted payment. The implication is the same, though: Plans can beat the risk adjustment, and be overpaid.)

    How big is this selection effect in Medicare Advantage? The evidence suggests it’s huge. The most careful analysis was reported in a 2011 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Jason Brown of the Treasury Department, Mark Duggan of the University of Pennsylvania, Ilyana Kuziemko of Princeton and William Woolston of Stanford University. In 2006, Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by more than $3,000 per beneficiary because they were able to select beneficiaries who cost less than their risk-adjusted payments. About $1,000 of that overpayment reflects what the plans were paid, rather than what they bid. So relative to their bids, the plans were overpaid by $2,000 per beneficiary -- or roughly 25 percent of the bid, on average.
    Bear in mind that Part A also subsidizes tons of graduate education & costs of uninsured patients, in addition to not being able to select its membership (for example, I'll be automatically enrolled in Part A when my kidneys fail) - if anything, given its ability to self-select to minimize risk and cost to insurers, the MA cost advantage (if it exists) should be more significant than it is.

    I would rather have Medicare cost more, than not to have it at all
    I would rather give up a single-digit percentage of my AGI and have Medicare Part A with reforms that actually control the costs of health care than be forced to pay several thousand more per year out of pocket for Part C because someone who wasn't struggling economically didn't want a cent in extra taxes, but maybe that's just my big government socialism talking.

    Speaking of which: the Medicare trust fund "running out" does not mean it won't exist at all, it means Part A will only be able to pay out 90% of current benefits with its revenue after 2026 assuming no further reforms are made (and assuming the underlying assumptions for the effects of current reforms are absolutely correct).

    but if the Republicans were looking for pure compromise where they get everything, why did they choose Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats?
    I agree, why'd they choose a group that barely used the filibuster while the GOP was in the majority (aside from the 108th, peace be upon them), capitulated on nearly every major bill aside from EGTRRA, and had a significant number of people ideologically in line with themselves? Truly, it boggles the mind.

    I know this may be hard for you to understand, but there were the tax dollars they asked for and got
    Irrelevant: you referred to the revenue collection in Boehner's offer as "new taxes", were told that even Boehner did not consider them "new", and promptly moved the goalpost to completely different taxes.

    Getting butt hurt over a blog and not addressing the relevant information?
    "Relevant information" that does not actually address how many taxpayers are in the top brackets, which is the point of contention here.

    Problem is that not everyone follows that
    Interesting to note that, given that the data used to produce that 3% figure explicitly looks at taxable income - and that the data you cited in a previous post relies on a misleading definition of "business".

    Reagan had a Tip O'Neil led Democratic majority in the House for most (all?) of his term. Bill Clinton had a Republican House and Senate for most of his administration starting in 1994. George W Bush had a 50-50 split early on in his administration in the Senate, and Dem majorities in both Houses starting in 2007.
    What all three of those had in common, except for the final two years of W's administration: lower levels of Congressional polarization, mostly on the GOP's side.
    Last edited by John Madden; 9th September 2012 at 10:06 PM.
    last.fm
    facebook


    OFFICIAL ATTACK HUCKSTER OF SPP
    If you see this sig in the debate forum, you're definitely doing something wrong.

Page 5 of 111 FirstFirst 1234567891555105 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •