• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Bill has passed

The healthcare bill costs $172 billion/year.
Iraq costs $105 billion/year.

The healthcare bill costs more.
Click to expand...

Looks like the healthcare bill costs 64% more than the war in Iraq.
 
Captain America said:
I thought, of all people, you would be one to appreciate that. You wanna keep paying for the people leeching on society? Why should my insurance rates and taxes go up because the guy down the street isn't responsible enough to carry his own health insurance?

Methinks, had the GOP suggested this, you'd be all over it. But I could be wrong. :3oops:
Click to expand...

And you actually think they won't under this bill ????

Who's going to pay for people's health insurance that can't pay for it??

Who's going to pay for the extra cost of insuring 24 year old "kids"??

Who's going to pay for the cost of insuring those with pre-existing conditions ???
 
reefedjib said:
Looks like the healthcare bill costs 64% more than the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

That is the healthcare outlay. Unlike the Iraq war, there is actually an inflow from healthcare. Now you can argue with the CBO estimated bottom line (which is positive), but you have to acknowledge that there will be some inflows (measureable benefits). The number you quoted is the annual investment in healthcare reform, its annual net expense.
 
how do you expand m and m by 31 mil while simultaneously cutting funding by half a T?

why do you talk about such little teeny things, leaving CONSERVATIVES exclusively to discuss the important?

such as THIRTY ONE MILLION PEOPLE?

and HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS?

how can you be so naive as to believe that 2/3 of all this crap can be paid for by recovering monies lost thru waste, fraud and abuse?

are you being honest with yourself?

why do you sound pessimistic about this bill?
 
The Prof said:
slip sliding away

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN poll: Majority disapprove of Obama for first time - Blogs from CNN.com

when a president's disapprovals exceed 40% he's got trouble

cnn actually points it up quite particularly

americans' feelings towards their presidents are uniquely personal, he becomes very familiar, ie, almost a part of the family

americans are extremely reluctant to dump on their president personally


americans LIKE president pieface as a man

you know how personal popularity is gonna impact perceptions of job performance---if you like someone you are less prone to say unkind things

americans like this president, he's a nice guy, good

but the majority of them SAY he's doing a CRAPPY job

the reality is therefore WORSE than the numbers

when a president's negatives top 40% he's always in BIG trouble

for the personal reasons outlined above
Click to expand...

How convenient to pick a poll, out of many, and use it to validate your personal ideals. Not very original, but convenient.

The RCP average (which is the average of the major credible pollsters) put Obama's approval rate at 47.4% and his disapproval rate @ 46.6%. He's still approved my more people than disapproved. But nice try Prof. I gotta give you an E for effort. Now take your seat and write down next week's assignment from the chalkboard. :rofl

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
 
upsideguy said:
That is the healthcare outlay. Unlike the Iraq war, there is actually an inflow from healthcare. Now you can argue with the CBO estimated bottom line (which is positive), but you have to acknowledge that there will be some inflows (measureable benefits). The number you quoted is the annual investment in healthcare reform, its annual net expense.
Click to expand...

Yes, the net expense, so this is after accounting for inflows.
 
another of those wingnut sources, cbs (LOL!), THIS MORNING has naughty nancy at ELEVEN PERCENT approval!

and hassled harry is at EIGHT PERCENT!

Poll: Low Favorability Ratings For Pelosi, Reid - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

ouch!

i wonder why their numbers are SO LOW!

LOL!

they're each at roughly THREE TO ONE negative to positive

and the 36% of respondents who say they "haven't heard enough..."

well, just wait til they hear

because, clearly, those who've followed all that's GONE DOWN do NOT approve
 
Gill said:
You are showing your lack of business knowledge with every post. Taxes are a known quantity, except in the rare case when Congress makes a change. If they changed constantly, the accounting software people would be the ones getting rich. As it is, they supply tax updates for their software yearly, which is sufficient.

The tax is on taxable income of the business owner's personal tax statement.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are showing your total lack of understanding how businesses determine the size of their workforce. It is based on the needs of the company to meet the demand for their product to maximize profits. An increase or decrease in taxes will have no impact on hiring or crew size. Demand and productivity determine that. You must have gone to the Glenn Beck School of economics, too.

State, Federal and local taxes do change from year to year. They are not a constant. They, like the cost of materials and energy fluctuate and are part of the cost of doing business.
 
reefedjib said:
Looks like the healthcare bill costs 64% more than the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I am not for this healthcare at this time since we do not have the money for it IMO.

With that being said, unlike the Iraq war at least the money will be used for Americans here at home and not overseas.
 
USA-1 said:
Wrong. You are showing your total lack of understanding how businesses determine the size of their workforce. It is based on the needs of the company to meet the demand for their product to maximize profits. An increase or decrease in taxes will have no impact on hiring or crew size. Demand and productivity determine that. You must have gone to the Glenn Beck School of economics, too.

State, Federal and local taxes do change from year to year. They are not a constant. They, like the cost of materials and energy fluctuate and are part of the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat the Rev's question that you ignored.... and add a couple of my own.

How much did your business make last year ???

How many businesses have you owned ??

Have you ever been responsible for providing paychecks to your employees??

Have you ever signed an IRS payroll tax deposit??

Have you ever signed a business tax return ???

Never mind, I already know the answer to all of these questions.
 
TheNextEra said:
I am not for this healthcare at this time since we do not have the money for it IMO.

With that being said, unlike the Iraq war at least the money will be used for Americans here at home and not overseas.
Click to expand...

We broke it. We cannot leave it in a mess. It is our responsibility as a responsible superpower.
 
USA-1 said:
Wrong. You are showing your total lack of understanding how businesses determine the size of their workforce. It is based on the needs of the company to meet the demand for their product to maximize profits. An increase or decrease in taxes will have no impact on hiring or crew size. Demand and productivity determine that. You must have gone to the Glenn Beck School of economics, too.

State, Federal and local taxes do change from year to year. They are not a constant. They, like the cost of materials and energy fluctuate and are part of the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are clueless about this.

No, that is not how people like ME, nor other companies I work with, determine the size of our workforces. Not even remotely close.

Companies operate based on risk and margin. (When it looked like Obama was going to be elected, everybody started slashing their staff and budgets to the bone; we knew what was coming.)

When taxes are low, we take risks. The tolerance of risk is based on the overhead we project, which includes taxes and regulations, AS WELL AS THE TARGET CLIENT'S ability to spend, which impacts what sort of margin I can expect to realize.

When you increase my risk, you impact my expected margin. In order to get that in balance, I have to cut costs, which means I have to reduce staff.

That, in turn, makes for an economy of fewer people/companies that have disposable income or growth reserves that are necessary to buy my products. It becomes a spiralling self-fulfilling prophecy.

And now, with Obama's big government and taxes, I will eventually be forced to get rid of the healthcare plan we provide our employees and force them on to a government plan. I'd be better off paying the $3,000 fine per employee, frankly.

So it's MEDICAID FOR EVERYONE! Yay.
 
Travelsonic said:
Beat me to it, saw it on Fox News -- 219 yay to 212 nay, sorta close.
Click to expand...
If a 5-4 SCotUS decision is meaningles because it falls along partisan lines, what is a 219-212 house vote?
 
Hugh_Akston said:
It's a crying shame that our "elected representatives" would go against the will of the people and pass this load of crap. This is one more nail in the coffin of the United States of America. This is socialism, plain and simple. Our government is destroying this country from the inside out. This will devastate our economy and put even more people out of work, not to mention what this will add to our outrageous and out of control deficit. Let's hope this gets shot down on Constitutional grounds and soon.
Click to expand...

Anyone care to cite th epower of Congress that allows Congress to require that the people buy insurance simply because they live and breathe?
 
Goobieman said:
If a 5-4 SCotUS decision is meaningles because it falls along partisan lines, what is a 219-212 house vote?
Click to expand...

If you're a Democrat, it's a mandate!!

:rofl

And since some Democrats voted against it, I guess that makes it bipartisan too.
 
TheNextEra said:
I am not for this healthcare at this time
Click to expand...

nobody is

at least nobody on this thread

liberals around the nation have major problems with this PIG

it was passed by a leadership and 219 individuals who got their arms twisted like john mccain's

ie, NOT representational govt

oh well

party on, progressives

be PROUD!
 
Erod said:
Wow, you are clueless about this.

No, that is not how people like ME, nor other companies I work with, determine the size of our workforces. Not even remotely close.

Companies operate based on risk and margin. (When it looked like Obama was going to be elected, everybody started slashing their staff and budgets to the bone; we knew what was coming.)

When taxes are low, we take risks. The tolerance of risk is based on the overhead we project, which includes taxes and regulations, AS WELL AS THE TARGET CLIENT'S ability to spend, which impacts what sort of margin I can expect to realize.

When you increase my risk, you impact my expected margin. In order to get that in balance, I have to cut costs, which means I have to reduce staff.

That, in turn, makes for an economy of fewer people/companies that have disposable income or growth reserves that are necessary to buy my products. It becomes a spiralling self-fulfilling prophecy.

And now, with Obama's big government and taxes, I will eventually be forced to get rid of the healthcare plan we provide our employees and force them on to a government plan. I'd be better off paying the $3,000 fine per employee, frankly.

So it's MEDICAID FOR EVERYONE! Yay.
Click to expand...

That is total BS. I have worked for a hundred year old, multi-billion dollar company for thirty years. My company, like every successful company, adjust workforce levels to maximize profits. Demand and productivity determine levels, not tax rates.
You are totally clueless. Your company will not last long if you set your risk according to tax rates.
 
USA-1 said:
That is total BS. I have worked for a hundred year old, multi-billion dollar company for thirty years. My company, like every successful company, adjust workforce levels to maximize profits. Demand and productivity determine levels, not tax rates.
You are totally clueless. Your company will not last long if you set your risk according to tax rates.
Click to expand...




We accept your concesion.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We accept your concesion.
Click to expand...

What concession? Just because someone owns a business does not make them an expert. Far from it. Most don't know what they are doing and the stat that 50% of businesses fail in the first year is testament to that. A company that determines its workforce by tax rates will fail.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
What concession? Just because someone owns a business does not make them an expert. Far from it. Most don't know what they are doing and the stat that 50% of businesses fail in the first year is testament to that.
Click to expand...




You are trying to apply your view of how a large business runs to a small business... That is fail prior to the 1st year on your part. :thumbs:
 
USA-1 said:
What concession? Just because someone owns a business does not make them an expert. Far from it. Most don't know what they are doing and the stat that 50% of businesses fail in the first year is testament to that. A company that determines its workforce by tax rates will fail.
Click to expand...

Oh, you conceded all right. But like I said, we already knew you've never written a payroll check or a tax check to the government in your life. That was obvious and continues to be.

Some things you can't get out of a college economics 101 book. Running a business in real life often does not resemble the case studies in books.
 
Goobieman said:
Anyone care to cite th epower of Congress that allows Congress to require that the people buy insurance simply because they live and breathe?
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a Supreme Court decision in 1937, that upheld the right of the Government to force people to pay Social Security taxes, that is applicable here. Doesn't make it right, though, but it does make it legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom