Page 128 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2878118126127128129 LastLast
Results 1,271 to 1,280 of 1290

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

  1. #1271
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,397

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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 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.



    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.
    Sorry, but your recollection of the Clinton years is typical liberalism, you buy the Clinton rhetoric and ignore the reality of the time. Clinton raised taxes which gave us a GOP Congress and the Contract with America. How much of that contract was implemented and what did it do to taxes. Further we never had a balanced budget during the Clinton years, came close but never balanced and the debt went from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion. How did the debt grow with a balanced budget? Pretty simple but again liberals don't get it and never will.

    There are two parts to the debt, public debt which comes from the budget and intergovt. holdings which includes Medicare and SS. Clinton operated on a unified budget taking money from SS and Medicare and having that on budget to spend on everything other than SS and Medicare leaving IOU's which are debt which have to be funded when due. As an accountant I would expect you to understand that taking money from SS and Medicare left a shortfall in those categories which is a long term debt that has to be funded. Taking money from intergovtl holdings left a deficit and that added up to the debt that Clinton generated.

    Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

    Live for today people have no concept of what taking from SS and Medicare actually means. i would expect an account to understand it.

    Further here is the budget site that you can see SS and Medicare as part of the budget, why?

    Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Bureau of the Fiscal Service

    As for Reagan raising taxes, when he cut taxes he cut income taxes that affected EVERY American, when he raised taxes he raised use taxes that only cost people who used those categories giving the people a choice. those that didn't drive didn't pay for the increase in gasoline taxes, those who don't pay into SS didn't get a raise and won't get money when they retire. Liberals seem to have a problem understanding that use taxes only affect those that use the items whereas income tax cuts affected all income earners.

  2. #1272
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,397

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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!



    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.
    Before you can address costs don't you think you should define what drives up those costs. Get back to me with the list and we can discuss them. There is a reason U.S. costs are higher, let's see if you and figure it out by item?

  3. #1273
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Sorry, but your recollection of the Clinton years is typical liberalism, you buy the Clinton rhetoric and ignore the reality of the time. Clinton raised taxes which gave us a GOP Congress and the Contract with America. How much of that contract was implemented and what did it do to taxes. Further we never had a balanced budget during the Clinton years, came close but never balanced and the debt went from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion. How did the debt grow with a balanced budget? Pretty simple but again liberals don't get it and never will.
    You're not telling me anything I don't know. Individual income taxes as a share of GDP went from 9.1 to 8.0 under Reagan. Under Clinton that went from 7.4 to 9.9. So taxes WERE increased and substantially and the economy and jobs boomed.

    And I realize we never had an actual 'balanced' budget, which is why, if you look above, I always try to put 'balanced' in quotes or similar. I checked and at least several times I remembered.

    There are two parts to the debt, public debt which comes from the budget and intergovt. holdings which includes Medicare and SS. Clinton operated on a unified budget taking money from SS and Medicare and having that on budget to spend on everything other than SS and Medicare leaving IOU's which are debt which have to be funded when due. As an accountant I would expect you to understand that taking money from SS and Medicare left a shortfall in those categories which is a long term debt that has to be funded. Taking money from intergovtl holdings left a deficit and that added up to the debt that Clinton generated.
    And everyone has operated on a so-called unified budget since LBJ or so.

    Live for today people have no concept of what taking from SS and Medicare actually means. i would expect an account to understand it.
    And I do!

  4. #1274
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,397

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    JasperL;1063485086]You're not telling me anything I don't know. Individual income taxes as a share of GDP went from 9.1 to 8.0 under Reagan. Under Clinton that went from 7.4 to 9.9. So taxes WERE increased and substantially and the economy and jobs boomed.
    Apparently I am because the Clinton tax reduction act of 1997 is being ignored

    And I realize we never had an actual 'balanced' budget, which is why, if you look above, I always try to put 'balanced' in quotes or similar. I checked and at least several times I remembered.
    Good, now we can put that Clinton myth to bed


    And everyone has operated on a so-called unified budget since LBJ or so.
    Pretty much, everyone but Reagan who didn't have the funds available which is why he had to raise the payroll taxes that fund SS and Medicare. At least this is a tax that people who were forced to contribute get back when they retire



    And I do!
    Great, and now here is just how big of a hole we have

    Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times

  5. #1275
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Apparently I am because the Clinton tax reduction act of 1997 is being ignored
    Not ignored, but the individual tax was 9.9% of GDP at the end of Clinton's era. That's FAR higher than where it began. I hope you're not asserting he didn't REALLY raise taxes. He did, jobs and the economy boomed.

    Good, now we can put that Clinton myth to bed
    Every President since forever has reduced so-called "deficits" by the SS surplus, so it's as correct to say Clinton 'balanced' the budget as it was to reduce the Bush era deficits by the Surplus. Both aren't correct, but I doubt you corrected any GOPers during the Bush era when they far understated deficits. Maybe I'm wrong....

    Pretty much, everyone but Reagan who didn't have the funds available which is why he had to raise the payroll taxes that fund SS and Medicare. At least this is a tax that people who were forced to contribute get back when they retire

    Great, and now here is just how big of a hole we have

    Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times
    Nothing new to me in that story. SS has reduced deficits for 30 years, and now we need to cut it SS because awful DEFICITS AND DEBT!!, and no one, including way to darn many in the democratic party, wants to make good on the IOUs. Typical. Never a bad reason to cut taxes on the plutocrats, never a bad reason to cut benefits for the proles.

  6. #1276
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    40,003

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #1277
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,836

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Not ignored, but the individual tax was 9.9% of GDP at the end of Clinton's era. That's FAR higher than where it began. I hope you're not asserting he didn't REALLY raise taxes. He did, jobs and the economy boomed.
    You think that the the economy was because of a tax hike? No. Clinton enjoyed a good economy because of policy put into place by not only Ronald Reagan, but because of bubbles that Clinton created like his changes to the CRA that GW Bush had the unfortunate timing to follow, and be blamed for the results of...

    Then there were also the republicans in the congress that Clinton realized that he had to work with to get anything done, and ended up adopting many republican ideas in his second term that helped the country. Be nice to have that now wouldn't it? Maybe after November.

    Every President since forever has reduced so-called "deficits" by the SS surplus, so it's as correct to say Clinton 'balanced' the budget as it was to reduce the Bush era deficits by the Surplus. Both aren't correct, but I doubt you corrected any GOPers during the Bush era when they far understated deficits. Maybe I'm wrong....
    Two things here...Obama came in increasing deficits by 30% or better, then when congress reals it back in (to the objection of liberals) with sequester, he claims that he is reducing deficits...It's a lie. Second, this automatic knee jerk of liberals to excuse every lie, or misdeed that happens today by immediately pointing to the past and what people may, or may not have objected to is immature, and dishonest. I doubt that any person on this board would accept that kind of excuse from their children, so why is it acceptable to use it for this President...?

    Nothing new to me in that story. SS has reduced deficits for 30 years, and now we need to cut it SS because awful DEFICITS AND DEBT!!, and no one, including way to darn many in the democratic party, wants to make good on the IOUs. Typical. Never a bad reason to cut taxes on the plutocrats, never a bad reason to cut benefits for the proles.
    So I take it by your assertion that SS reduces deficit, that you believe that SS is really nothing more than a tax to use as government sees fit? This myth of a "lock box" is just that, another lie.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #1278
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,397

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Not ignored, but the individual tax was 9.9% of GDP at the end of Clinton's era. That's FAR higher than where it began. I hope you're not asserting he didn't REALLY raise taxes. He did, jobs and the economy boomed.



    Every President since forever has reduced so-called "deficits" by the SS surplus, so it's as correct to say Clinton 'balanced' the budget as it was to reduce the Bush era deficits by the Surplus. Both aren't correct, but I doubt you corrected any GOPers during the Bush era when they far understated deficits. Maybe I'm wrong....



    Nothing new to me in that story. SS has reduced deficits for 30 years, and now we need to cut it SS because awful DEFICITS AND DEBT!!, and no one, including way to darn many in the democratic party, wants to make good on the IOUs. Typical. Never a bad reason to cut taxes on the plutocrats, never a bad reason to cut benefits for the proles.
    Income taxes as a percentage of GDP doesn't pay the debt service but rather actual dollars created and Reagan inherited a double dip recession, Clinton didn't. Never said Reagan didn't raise taxes but rather didn't raise INCOME TAXES. You don't seem to understand what your taxes actually fund and the difference between income taxes and use taxes

    You are indeed wrong as I showed you by the links, there was no Clinton surplus and every year the debt increased and if there was a surplus the debt wouldn't increase. Debt=Public debt PLUS intergovernment holdings.

    So you don't have any problem with being forced to contribute to SS and Medicare only to have those contributions spent on something other than SS and Medicare? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me. What happened to the Al Gore Lock box?

    Seems that liberals have no problem with a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt.

  9. #1279
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    You think that the the economy was because of a tax hike? No. Clinton enjoyed a good economy because of policy put into place by not only Ronald Reagan, but because of bubbles that Clinton created like his changes to the CRA that GW Bush had the unfortunate timing to follow, and be blamed for the results of...
    Beautiful stuff there. All the good that happened under Clinton was because of Reagan. The housing crisis was obviously Clinton's fault. Are you serious?

    But the point about taxes is fairly simple. Right wingers constantly talk about the Reagan tax cuts and the wonderful prosperity that followed. OK, we did have several good years! It's in the data, no need to say, well they weren't all that good. They were. But I don't think the prosperity can be tied exclusively or primarily to the tax cuts because we've had lots of good years in this country with high tax rates, low tax rates, following tax rate decreases and tax rate decreases. Taxes are one, fairly minor, factor among dozens of things that drive the U.S. economy. Proof enough of this is the performance of the economy following Clinton's tax increases. If taxes were the key factor, we should have seen terrible years in the late 1990s. We didn't - we created a ton of jobs, stock market boomed, etc. So the highest tax burden as a share of GDP in many decades did not cause that boom.

    Then there were also the republicans in the congress that Clinton realized that he had to work with to get anything done, and ended up adopting many republican ideas in his second term that helped the country. Be nice to have that now wouldn't it? Maybe after November.
    OK, your opinion is noted. All the good is from GOPers, all the bad from democrats. I got the picture.

    Two things here...Obama came in increasing deficits by 30% or better, then when congress reals it back in (to the objection of liberals) with sequester, he claims that he is reducing deficits...It's a lie. Second, this automatic knee jerk of liberals to excuse every lie, or misdeed that happens today by immediately pointing to the past and what people may, or may not have objected to is immature, and dishonest. I doubt that any person on this board would accept that kind of excuse from their children, so why is it acceptable to use it for this President...?
    You've missed a lot of discussion. I acknowledge that Clinton didn't 'balance' the budget. But if democrats make that claim, they're just using the SAME STANDARD every POTUS since Reagan has used to measure deficits, and balance or non-balanced budgets. They have ALL used the SS surplus to communicate the size of the deficit, so you can't now claim that because the standard used by everyone is somehow offensive to the discourse only because that common measure reveals a 'surplus.' It's a minor point, and I care little about it.

    So I take it by your assertion that SS reduces deficit, that you believe that SS is really nothing more than a tax to use as government sees fit? This myth of a "lock box" is just that, another lie.
    No, that's not what I think. The SS surpluses didn't reduce the operating deficit, but politicians in both parties used that surplus to reduce REPORTED deficits. And IMO the debt owed to the SS system is as valid as Treasuries held by the public. I think now that we're having to pay down $2.5 TRILLION of that debt in the next few decades the the political system (with support of both parties) will try like heck to disregard that debt.

  10. #1280
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Income taxes as a percentage of GDP doesn't pay the debt service but rather actual dollars created and Reagan inherited a double dip recession, Clinton didn't. Never said Reagan didn't raise taxes but rather didn't raise INCOME TAXES. You don't seem to understand what your taxes actually fund and the difference between income taxes and use taxes
    Sure he raised income taxes, but he didn't raise marginal rates.

    You are indeed wrong as I showed you by the links, there was no Clinton surplus and every year the debt increased and if there was a surplus the debt wouldn't increase. Debt=Public debt PLUS intergovernment holdings.
    I got it, really. But by the same measuring stick used by Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton and Obama, he produced the only 'surplus.' You're objecting to him using the same standard everyone's used for decades, which is technically correct of course.

    So you don't have any problem with being forced to contribute to SS and Medicare only to have those contributions spent on something other than SS and Medicare? Sounds like a big Ponzi scheme to me. What happened to the Al Gore Lock box?

    Seems that liberals have no problem with a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt.
    Yes, I object to using SS to reduce the deficit, then when we draw on the surplus, treat it like we're in a damn crisis. We're in a crisis because SS was used to hide the real effect of decades of taxes way too low to fund government. SS hid $2.5T in actual deficits.

    And I have a problem with a $3.9T federal government, but we probably disagree in some cases about how to make it smaller.

Posting Permissions

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