Page 126 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2676116124125126127128 ... LastLast
Results 1,251 to 1,260 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #1251
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's just not what the DATA and EVIDENCE show. Maybe you can inform me with different data? Here's that list of spending per capita. See where we rank:

    List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What am I missing?



    OK, sounds great. Now deal with paying for it, setting the voucher amount, tell me how you'll deal with cancer survivors for whom no amount of voucher will get them insurance, etc. I'll wait till I see an actual proposal to spend a lot of time examining. And if I'm waiting on GOPers for that, probably be dead before I see it (I'm 51).

    Here you go again, believing that all money comes from the govt. A voucher system is a tax credit that allows people to keep more of what they earn. That isn't an expense to the govt. and in fact scares the hell out of liberals because they lose control.

  2. #1252
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Europe doesn't have 312 million people living in 50 sovereign states. You want a govt run program controlled by a govt that has generated a 17.5 trillion dollar debt which means about 250 BILLION dollars a year in debt service. Wonder what that 250 billion would cover were it not going to service a debt? Guess out of sight out of mind with you but that 250 billion is in the budget and that is going to skyrocket when the interest rates rise. Now you want a program that will add trillions to that debt. That is lunacy.
    Now you're onto debt. Wonder how the Reagan and Bush tax cuts affected the debt. Oh yeah, per Cheney, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won.....[more tax cuts for our wealthy base] is our due." And so, we cut taxes, went to war, cut taxes again. And NOW we're worried about the debt.... Great....

    If you want to have a serious conversation about debt, that's fine, but the fact is if we spent what France does - cut roughly 6% of GDP off our healthcare costs, we'd save around $900 billion per year. Not all of it government but a huge chunk, at all levels. It would go a long way in solving our long term structural problems.

    I guess I'm not sure what we're even debating at this point.

  3. #1253
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Now you're onto debt. Wonder how the Reagan and Bush tax cuts affected the debt. Oh yeah, per Cheney, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won.....[more tax cuts for our wealthy base] is our due." And so, we cut taxes, went to war, cut taxes again. And NOW we're worried about the debt.... Great....

    If you want to have a serious conversation about debt, that's fine, but the fact is if we spent what France does - cut roughly 6% of GDP off our healthcare costs, we'd save around $900 billion per year. Not all of it government but a huge chunk, at all levels. It would go a long way in solving our long term structural problems.

    I guess I'm not sure what we're even debating at this point.
    The Reagan debt of 1.7 trillion dollars pales in comparison to the 6.8 trillion Obama debt and left a debt that was 50% of GDP. Obama now has a debt well exceeding 100% of GDP but then again that is for another thread just more diversion from the reality that you expect someone else to pay for your contraception. A single payer system will not cut expenses nor will Obamacare and that precious that liberals love to tout has revised their Obamacare costs. Keep buying the rhetoric and then telling everyone you are sorry you were wrong, oh, wait, you seldom say you are wrong.

  4. #1254
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Here you go again, believing that all money comes from the govt. A voucher system is a tax credit that allows people to keep more of what they earn. That isn't an expense to the govt. and in fact scares the hell out of liberals because they lose control.
    Of course it's an expense to government. Whatever the amount, we'll have to raise taxes or cut spending equal by the amount of vouchers to keep the deficit the same. The result is identical if we send out checks equal to the credit.

    And vouchers don't scare me at all - in fact many countries have a kind of voucher system, that's how their 'single payer' system works. Obviously the voucher is highly regulated, and is tied to prevailing costs of insurance (e.g. 70% of the cost of a basic insurance plan), which is also regulated (minimum coverage, etc.), but people get $X and then can spend that with any of many private insurers who offer different kinds of insurance.

    I just pointed out there are a few hundred practical issues with credits, and I'll wait till someone comes up with a proposal that deals with them before taking a tax credit scheme seriously. Simple things - what amount will the voucher cover - 20%, 90%? How will that be paid (taxes or spending cuts, and details of each)? How do you adjust for cost of living? What if you are in Texas, where it's cheap, and move to NYC, with double the costs? How will your voucher amount vary with children. What if you have disabled kids? How about if your wife is a breast cancer survivor? How fast will the vouchers grow? Does Warren Buffett get a voucher same as his yard guy? What if a woman has a child in June? Does she get an extra voucher, etc..........................
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-03-14 at 06:07 PM.

  5. #1255
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Of course it's an expense to government. Whatever the amount, we'll have to raise taxes or cut spending equal by the amount of vouchers to keep the deficit the same. The result is identical if we send out checks equal to the credit.

    And vouchers don't scare me at all - in fact many countries have a kind of voucher system, that's how their 'single payer' system works. Obviously the voucher is highly regulated, and is tied to prevailing costs of insurance (e.g. 70% of the cost of a basic insurance plan), which is also regulated (minimum coverage, etc.), but people get $X and then can spend that with any of many private insurers who offer different kinds of insurance.

    I just pointed out there are a few hundred practical issues with credits, and I'll wait till someone comes up with a proposal that deals with them before taking a tax credit scheme seriously. Simple things - what amount will the voucher cover - 20%, 90%? How will that be paid (taxes or spending cuts, and details of each)? How do you adjust for cost of living? What if you are in Texas, where it's cheap, and move to NYC, with double the costs? How will your voucher amount vary with children. What if you have disabled kids? How about if your wife is a breast cancer survivor? How fast will the vouchers grow? Does Warren Buffett get a voucher same as his yard guy? What if a woman has a child in June? Does she get an extra voucher, etc..........................
    That is total liberal ignorance, you keeping more of what you earn in the form of tax credits isn't an expense to the govt. but rather increase economic activity and leads to more govt. revenue. Reagan cut income taxes three years in a role and Federal income tax revenue grew 60% and that information comes from BEA.gov or the Treasury Dept, which ever you prefer. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

    You have been conditioned to believe that the govt. needs the money more than you do and that anything you keep is an expense to the govt. Where did you take basic economics and civics?

  6. #1256
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    That is total liberal ignorance, you keeping more of what you earn in the form of tax credits isn't an expense to the govt. but rather increase economic activity and leads to more govt. revenue. Reagan cut income taxes three years in a role and Federal income tax revenue grew 60% and that information comes from BEA.gov or the Treasury Dept, which ever you prefer. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

    You have been conditioned to believe that the govt. needs the money more than you do and that anything you keep is an expense to the govt. Where did you take basic economics and civics?
    Funny. If you prove me wrong, I might get tired of it.

    If we have another thread about taxes, deficits, etc. I'll engage on the Reagan record, and Clinton, and Bush and Obama. I'm an accountant - this stuff is fun for me. But as to the credits, I'm not wrong. Let's do an example starting with a balanced budget and the only change is healthcare expenses. We can issue credits of $200, or spend $200 directly by cutting checks to individuals or directly to insurance companies or healthcare providers.

    Baseline Assumptions;
    Revenue: 1,000
    Expenses: 1,000

    Scenario 1 - issue tax credit of 200

    Immediate effect:

    Revenues: 800
    Expenses: 1,000
    Deficit: 200


    So we have to raise taxes or cut spending by 200 to balance the budget.

    Ex. 2 - we spend 200 in subsidies for health insurance, same amount per person.

    Immediate effect:

    Revenues: 1,000
    Expenses: 1,200
    Deficit: 200

    So we have to raise taxes or cut spending by 200 to balance the budget.

    The effect is identical. And your Laffer curve stuff doesn't work because the same money is going to the same hands in either case. If the money for subsidies is spent differently than the credit, then of course the assumptions might change, but that has nothing to do with credit versus direct expenditure.

  7. #1257
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Funny. If you prove me wrong, I might get tired of it.

    If we have another thread about taxes, deficits, etc. I'll engage on the Reagan record, and Clinton, and Bush and Obama. I'm an accountant - this stuff is fun for me. But as to the credits, I'm not wrong. Let's do an example starting with a balanced budget and the only change is healthcare expenses. We can issue credits of $200, or spend $200 directly by cutting checks to individuals or directly to insurance companies or healthcare providers.

    Baseline Assumptions;
    Revenue: 1,000
    Expenses: 1,000

    Scenario 1 - issue tax credit of 200

    Immediate effect:

    Revenues: 800
    Expenses: 1,000
    Deficit: 200


    So we have to raise taxes or cut spending by 200 to balance the budget.

    Ex. 2 - we spend 200 in subsidies for health insurance, same amount per person.

    Immediate effect:

    Revenues: 1,000
    Expenses: 1,200
    Deficit: 200

    So we have to raise taxes or cut spending by 200 to balance the budget.

    The effect is identical. And your Laffer curve stuff doesn't work because the same money is going to the same hands in either case. If the money for subsidies is spent differently than the credit, then of course the assumptions might change, but that has nothing to do with credit versus direct expenditure.

    Treasury Dept and Bureau of Economic Analysis reports a 60% increase in FIT(Reagan Term) after Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and 17 million jobs were created along with doubling the GDP. Seems like a pretty good return on investment except of course to you. Apparently you prefer the Obama results as do 39% of the public

  8. #1258
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    I'll just say the reason GOPers and to a lesser extent democrats love credits is they do NOT show up as 'government spending' but to the recipients the effect is identical. So if we give GE a $20B tax credit, that's OK, and no one would even notice. But goodness, if we cut checks to $20B to GE each year, why that would be a government subsidy, crony capitalism, increase spending, deficits, debt! OH NOO. So the way to deliver taxpayer funds to big donors is always (when they can) through tax credits and if not credits, through special deductions, which are just credits that take a different form. No one tracks who receives them, they don't show up in the spending budget, just as reduced revenues.

    It works for individuals too. Our employers pay is in part in medical benefits, but we don't include that in income, and they deduct it. If that income (value of medical benefits) was taxable like all other compensation, it would raise $117 billion in 2012 (and an equivalent amount each year). Well, we could also just divvy up the $117 billion and cut each person a check for the SAME AMOUNT, but that would be a subsidy, spending, and a huge amount. So it's buried as a special line item tax cut where the beneficiaries (me and everyone with employer provided insurance) for the most part have no idea they're getting a whopping government subsidy each year! It's wonderful!

  9. #1259
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'll just say the reason GOPers and to a lesser extent democrats love credits is they do NOT show up as 'government spending' but to the recipients the effect is identical. So if we give GE a $20B tax credit, that's OK, and no one would even notice. But goodness, if we cut checks to $20B to GE each year, why that would be a government subsidy, crony capitalism, increase spending, deficits, debt! OH NOO. So the way to deliver taxpayer funds to big donors is always (when they can) through tax credits and if not credits, through special deductions, which are just credits that take a different form. No one tracks who receives them, they don't show up in the spending budget, just as reduced revenues.

    It works for individuals too. Our employers pay is in part in medical benefits, but we don't include that in income, and they deduct it. If that income (value of medical benefits) was taxable like all other compensation, it would raise $117 billion in 2012 (and an equivalent amount each year). Well, we could also just divvy up the $117 billion and cut each person a check for the SAME AMOUNT, but that would be a subsidy, spending, and a huge amount. So it's buried as a special line item tax cut where the beneficiaries (me and everyone with employer provided insurance) for the most part have no idea they're getting a whopping government subsidy each year! It's wonderful!
    You are so right, that 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt needs the money, why? because a bureaucrat needs to be fed.

  10. #1260
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Treasury Dept and Bureau of Economic Analysis reports a 60% increase in FIT(Reagan Term) after Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and 17 million jobs were created along with doubling the GDP. Seems like a pretty good return on investment except of course to you. Apparently you prefer the Obama results as do 39% of the public
    That has nothing to do with credits versus direct expenditures, so I assume you accept that credits ARE an expense to government, same as direct expenditures.

    And like I said, I'd love to debate the specifics of the Reagan tax cuts, etc. on another thread. I'll just preview that Clinton RAISED taxes and we created far more jobs, plus 'balanced' the budget. If you're going to quote the wondrous things that happen when taxes go down, you have to at least address the jobs created under Clinton when taxes went UP.

Posting Permissions

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