Page 127 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127128129 LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,270 of 1290

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

  1. #1261
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,717

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You are so right, that 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt needs the money, why? because a bureaucrat needs to be fed.
    Well, you're ignoring the posts entirely now, so I'll take a break for a while.

  2. #1262
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    Of course it does, it reduces the amount of taxes an individual pays and that means they have more spendable income. It has nothing to do with the expenses to the govt. as consumer spending is the number one component of GDP and having more spendable income creates the atmosphere for more economic activity. Reagan created 17 million new taxpayers because of consumer spending.

    Clinton did raise taxes and what happened in 1994? How many of those taxes remained with the GOP Congress? Stop buying what you are told and get the facts.
    Last edited by Conservative; 07-03-14 at 06:57 PM.

  3. #1263
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,717

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Of course it does, it reduces the amount of taxes an individual pays and that means they have more spendable income. It has nothing to do with the expenses to the govt. as consumer spending is the number one component of GDP and having more spendable income creates the atmosphere for more economic activity. Reagan created 17 million new taxpayers because of consumer spending.

    Clinton did raise taxes and what happened in 1994? How many of those taxes remained with the GOP Congress? Stop buying what you are told and get the facts.
    Look, if I provide you a tax cut of $500, you have $500 more to spend, which is great for the economy. If I cut you a check for $500, you have $500 more to spend, which is great for the economy. There is no difference how I deliver that benefit to you - either way you have $500 more to spend, and the government, to fund that, has to increase taxes by $500 or cut spending somewhere else by $500. You're in the identical position, and so is government. This is math. If you think I'm wrong, show me where in the math I'm wrong.

  4. #1264
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Look, if I provide you a tax cut of $500, you have $500 more to spend, which is great for the economy. If I cut you a check for $500, you have $500 more to spend, which is great for the economy. There is no difference how I deliver that benefit to you - either way you have $500 more to spend, and the government, to fund that, has to increase taxes by $500 or cut spending somewhere else by $500. You're in the identical position, and so is government. This is math. If you think I'm wrong, show me where in the math I'm wrong.
    Do you understand economic activity? If you cut taxes putting more money into the hands of the taxpayers there is a multiplier effect. What do you do with more money in your pocket? Spend it? Save it? Invest it? Pay down debt? Every one of those benefit a consumer driven economy but liberals only believe in basic math and not the impact more money has in the hand of the people because they don't want the people to have those choices.

    If you don't have economic growth, if you don't have job creation and keep the pool the same then less money is going to go to the Treasury and govt. spending has to be cut, but the reality is Reagan tax cuts led to 17 million new taxpayers, doubling of GDP and a 60% increase in govt. income tax revenue. How can anyone be against those results and how can anyone say those results would have been generated without the tax cuts?

  5. #1265
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Much better? LOL, you like the author but ignore that the information is the same. You see apparently the facts change depending on who the author is regardless if the information is the same.

    Those growing pains in Europe are after years of universal healthcare and they don't have 312 million people.
    The information wasn't even close to the same...LOL....One was a propoganda piece based on a political agenda. The second article actually was a fairly unbiased factually based article. Why am I not surprised that you can't see the difference. Too funny.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #1266
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,943

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Can you cite some data on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.pdf
    All care is “free” for insured services —those provided by physicians and hospitals. No premiums, deductibles or co-payments are imposed. (Other services such as dental care and prescription drugs must be paid for either through private insurance or out-of-pocket.) When no one is faced with any charge for services, demand is unrestrained and costs surge. During the 90’s the federal government cut back the block amounts given to the provinces. It is not surprising that shortages developed and explicit rationing became widespread in Canada. 2
    The shortages and queues that resulted became an increasingly sore subject in Canada. The condition for shortages was enhanced because of the provision in the 1984 Act that decreed that any service that the single payer provides, no matter how much in short supply it may be, cannot be privately insured or produced and sold in Canada.
    Other sources:
    Why Canadian premier seeks health care in U.S. - SFGate
    How Many Canadians Seek Medical Care outside of Canada?
    Report: More Canadians leaving the country to seek medical care
    http://www.freep.com/article/2009082...et-health-care
    Tens of thousands fled socialized Canadian medicine in 2013 | The Daily Caller
    Seeking relief outside Canada&#39; s borders- Appeared in Guelph Mercury and Waterloo Region Record | Fraser Institute



    Something I noted while looking these things up and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but why isn't basic dental covered the same as basic health in Canada? I would think that they are one in the same.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #1267
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,722
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post



    Something I noted while looking these things up and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but why isn't basic dental covered the same as basic health in Canada? I would think that they are one in the same.
    Because of Canada's British heritage.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #1268
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The information wasn't even close to the same...LOL....One was a propoganda piece based on a political agenda. The second article actually was a fairly unbiased factually based article. Why am I not surprised that you can't see the difference. Too funny.
    And yet both raised the issue of rising costs in Europe due to the single payer system which obviously doesn't bother people like you who have no problem spending someone else's money. What is too funny is you point out what you see as one being political and the other being unbiased yet both address rising costs and both address the negative side of a single payer system.

    It is quite interesting that in spite of the evidence of rising costs in much smaller countries you continue to show liberal arrogance claiming that a govt. that has currently created a 17.5 trillion dollar debt, totally botched the ACA rollout somehow could do things better with a single payer system. Why can't people like you just admit that you are wrong?

  9. #1269
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,717

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Do you understand economic activity? If you cut taxes putting more money into the hands of the taxpayers there is a multiplier effect. What do you do with more money in your pocket? Spend it? Save it? Invest it? Pay down debt? Every one of those benefit a consumer driven economy but liberals only believe in basic math and not the impact more money has in the hand of the people because they don't want the people to have those choices.
    Again, whether you have $500 more because I cut your taxes, or cut you a check, the effect on the economy and on government is IDENTICAL. Sure, if I cut your marginal rate, you might invest a bit more because of the higher, after tax rate of return, etc. Different argument entirely.

    And there is a multiplier effect with spending, and a multiplier effect with tax cuts. The largest multiplier is for direct checks written to the poor - food stamps, unemployment, etc. because they spend all of that immediately, usually in the local economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy have much lower multipliers because give Romney or Buffett and extra $1 million and they don't spend ANY additional money, not a dime. We could debate long term multipliers, but the point is I am fully aware of them.

    If you don't have economic growth, if you don't have job creation and keep the pool the same then less money is going to go to the Treasury and govt. spending has to be cut, but the reality is Reagan tax cuts led to 17 million new taxpayers, doubling of GDP and a 60% increase in govt. income tax revenue. How can anyone be against those results and how can anyone say those results would have been generated without the tax cuts?
    You keep mentioning Reagan. OK, he also raised taxes every year from 1982-1988. The net WAS a tax cut, but we had just as good results after the tax INCREASES of Clinton, and we 'balanced' the budget, while Reagan exploded the deficit. I can address the revenue effects but don't want to look up the data now - let's just say that they're less impressive when you adjust for inflation, the payroll tax increases, population growth and the kind of GDP growth we got under any Pres for the last century or so, no matter what happened to taxes.
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-03-14 at 08:39 PM.

  10. #1270
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,717

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And yet both raised the issue of rising costs in Europe due to the single payer system which obviously doesn't bother people like you who have no problem spending someone else's money. What is too funny is you point out what you see as one being political and the other being unbiased yet both address rising costs and both address the negative side of a single payer system.
    Costs have been rising faster HERE, and are double those of Europe. I'm not sure what the argument you're making is. We could post articles all day about the negative side of the U.S. system, starting with leaving 16% uninsured, etc.

    And the first was just hackery because they didn't note the UK spends 40% what we do. 40%. On our scale, $1.7 TRILLION less. Goodness, if we started out at their level and had a cost increase, that would be a dream world!

    It is quite interesting that in spite of the evidence of rising costs in much smaller countries you continue to show liberal arrogance claiming that a govt. that has currently created a 17.5 trillion dollar debt, totally botched the ACA rollout somehow could do things better with a single payer system. Why can't people like you just admit that you are wrong?
    I'm not sure what we're "wrong" about. We disagree, but my opinion is pulled out of the same place as yours, only I can cite evidence from the entire rest of the world to indicate single payer probably works better and is certainly FAR cheaper. All you have is your opinion.

Posting Permissions

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