View Poll Results: w will this budget affect the 2012 election?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will help Obama/Democrats

    16 39.02%
  • It will help Republicans

    8 19.51%
  • Don't know

    10 24.39%
  • No change

    7 17.07%
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 225

Thread: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

  1. #121
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its an indisputable fact that Ryans plan cuts the tax rate on the wealthy. This just cant be honestly argued against and you're correct to say it.

    Whether or not it significantly benefits the rich more than the poor or the middle class with regards to taxes that are actually paid, or if this will raise or lower the amount of taxes paid rather than the base rate, however is far from an open and shut case. There is a legitimate argument about those things.

    So saying Ryans plan lowers the tax rate on the wealthy is correct. Suggesting that it decreases the taxes the wealthy will ultimately pay, or far more significantly benefits the rich when it comes to taxes is a far more questionable claim.
    Very little of the tax rate cuts effect middle and lower class people. They get almost no gain from it, as well as for the other changes. Some of the deduction's removed(ie for mortgages) however do affect middle class people, who do not have the lower tax rate to benefit from in return.

    Without knowing all the details which are not in place yet, you are technically correct, but all the evidence so far indicates that upper class people will receive tax reductions, while the middle class will ultimately pay more and lower class and the elderly will get fewer benefits from the government. While the reduction in benefits does need to happen, assuming that it is done to benefit the higher incomes, it is both a mistake, and a huge PR gain for democrats.

    Again, looking at the information that Ryan himself presents, it does appear from his own words that this will benefit the wealthy. While I think down the road further tax cuts will be a good thing, and those should favor the wealthy(they do pay a larger share of taxes now on average), I do not think it is a good idea to mess with taxes or the tax system until the deficit problem is handled, and not by shifting the burden.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #122
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    AMT hits some middle class people, admitting that it's the upper end of the middle class but still.
    it does for those with specific deductions.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #123
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Very little of the tax rate cuts effect middle and lower class people. They get almost no gain from it, as well as for the other changes. Some of the deduction's removed(ie for mortgages) however do affect middle class people, who do not have the lower tax rate to benefit from in return.

    Without knowing all the details which are not in place yet, you are technically correct, but all the evidence so far indicates that upper class people will receive tax reductions, while the middle class will ultimately pay more and lower class and the elderly will get fewer benefits from the government. While the reduction in benefits does need to happen, assuming that it is done to benefit the higher incomes, it is both a mistake, and a huge PR gain for democrats.

    Again, looking at the information that Ryan himself presents, it does appear from his own words that this will benefit the wealthy. While I think down the road further tax cuts will be a good thing, and those should favor the wealthy(they do pay a larger share of taxes now on average), I do not think it is a good idea to mess with taxes or the tax system until the deficit problem is handled, and not by shifting the burden.
    The wealthy benefit from the mortgage tax deduction more so than any other group.
    They typically have the highest cost homes with the highest amount of deductible interest.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #124
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The wealthy benefit from the mortgage tax deduction more so than any other group.
    They typically have the highest cost homes with the highest amount of deductible interest.
    Yes, and certainly not debatable. However, let's look at a nice real world situation. My brother and my brother in law. My brother in law makes about 500k a year, while my brother makes 50k. The tax rate changes will not benefit my brother much if at all. My brother in law will pay significantly less based solely on the rate change, plus benefits much more from the interest and capital gains tax elimination. Both are buying houses, with my brother in laws house being about 3 times the cost of my brothers(100k vs 300k). My brother ends up, looking strictly at these things, paying more in tax, my brother in law, less.

    Now, as Zyphlin points out, we do not know the details yet of the deductions that will be eliminated, even to the point of whether or not deductions for mortgage payments will be deductible for sure, though it is one I have heard is gone. However, eliminating deductibles will effect the middle class(in some cases dramatically), and they do not receive much if anything from the tax rate cuts and the elimination of interest and capital gains taxes.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,418
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    If the Tea Party can "stay on topic" they will gain support. That is, stay non partisan. The first thing the Tea Party needs to realize is that the GOP is full of the same kind of idiots the Democratic party has. Support fiscally responsible candidates no MATTER what color their badge says. Oh, and to be honest, if America could get away from electing lawyers, we'd do ourselves a HUGE favor..


    Tim-
    I have GOT to find that Washington speech where he lists the reasons he despised political parties and describes in detail the problems resulting from a two party system.

    Because DAMNED if almost all of the acrimony and divisiveness we are currently attempting to deal with wasn't predicted in considerable detail in that speech.

    I'll be back!
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #126
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Very little of the tax rate cuts effect middle and lower class people. They get almost no gain from it, as well as for the other changes. Some of the deduction's removed(ie for mortgages) however do affect middle class people, who do not have the lower tax rate to benefit from in return.
    Which is a fact in and of itself matters little to what I said. If the net gain for the "Rich" isn't that large of one, if even that, then the middle and lowe lass having an even smaller or negligible gain still doesn't represent a significant difference between the two as many are seemingly trying to make this out to be.

    Without knowing all the details which are not in place yet, you are technically correct, but all the evidence so far indicates that upper class people will receive tax reductions, while the middle class will ultimately pay more and lower class and the elderly will get fewer benefits from the government.
    I don't know where you get this "all the evidence so far" statement, since others like cpwill have been pointing to suggestions quite the contrary to what you're saying. The evidence is not indicating only a single implication in this. Some are pointing to the upper class recieving a hefty reduction in taxes while others are pointing to the upper class primarily having anywhere from a small net gain to a moderate net loss due to exemptions being removed. I'm also not sure where you're seeing only evidence that the Middle Class will be paying more since many of the deductions that will be lost won't apply to them and the removal of the AMT could potentially offset it when you're talking about the average of them all.

    Now I won't disagree with you about the lower class and elderly getting fewer benefits from the government, though its dishonest to cache it that way obviously implying that somehow those benefits will be denied only to the lower class and elderly. However, that's irrelevant to the conversation of whether or not the "rich" are being significantly helped in this with regards to taxes comparitive to their counter parts.

    While the reduction in benefits does need to happen, assuming that it is done to benefit the higher incomes, it is both a mistake, and a huge PR gain for democrats.
    And again, this is nothing but absolute partisan spin on your end with suggsting that the reduction is benefits is "done to benefit the higher incomes". There is a glaring fallacy within your argument to suggest that because the tax rate of the "Rich" is going down and some government benefits are being stripped away are both in the plan that it must automatically mean that government benefits being stripped away are specifically to pay for the tax rate reduction. You see two things and immedietely equate them together with not fact but pure conjecture. I won't deny that it can be spun that way be political pundets and politicians for the hope of PR gain...that absolutely can be done, as you are valiently demonstrating in this thread...however what it can be spun as and what it is are often two different things.

    Again, looking at the information that Ryan himself presents, it does appear from his own words that this will benefit the wealthy. While I think down the road further tax cuts will be a good thing, and those should favor the wealthy(they do pay a larger share of taxes now on average), I do not think it is a good idea to mess with taxes or the tax system until the deficit problem is handled, and not by shifting the burden.
    The largest contributors to this countries financial revenue stream is the "wealthy". Its not surprisingly that something aimed at reducing the deficit, in part by also attempting to speed up the economy, is going to have a larger positive impact on someone whose significantly paying into the system compared to someone that is barely or not paying into it at all. This is part of the ridiculous argument I hate regarding taxes. People complain you "cut taxes on the rich", making the rich benefit instead of the poor, while ignoring that the poor don't even pay an income tax so what did you want from them? Are we to never cut taxes on anyone at any time because there's a large segment of the population that we're incapable of cutting the taxes on without simply GIVING them government money for working because the "rich" will always benefit from that more than the poor?

    Yes, the plan as a whole could easily be argued that the "wealthy" are gaining more benefit from it. However, that comment by itself is rather worthless. Okay, they're getting more? Outside of PR spin of class warefare? So. If I said "The Poor are benefiting more from this" would that be a bad thing? What if I said the middle class? Or are you suggesting its not a negative.

    But even then, just suggesting the Wealthy are getting the most benefit is rather useless. If I give three people money and two get $99 dollars and one gets $100, the third person got "more" money from me...but in reality they all got a significant chunk of money and the disparity between them was extremely small. The "Wealthy" were going to take, by far, the most significant hit by greatly removing the loopholes in the tax code, essentially creating a sizable tax increase on them, something Republicans have argued all along and right on through the Bush Tax cut fiasco hurts the economy. Note, not the apparent Democrat argument of "it hurts the economy if you do it to some people but helps it if you do the other", but in general hurts the economy. So in conjunction with that they also reduced the tax rates that the "rich" would have to pay. An action that, based on all the evidence I'VE seen, has an unclear effect that may increase or decrease their total tax payments.

    Meanwhile, the reduction in spending from the cuts to various programs and the changes to others...including those that can come about due to a simplified tax code...benefits EVERYONE just like the running up of debt hurts everyone.

    Now. I'm not going to sit here and sugar coat it. Yes. You're correct in regards to the fact that in general this is more bad for the elderly and the poor and more good for the Wealthy. I do not however agree that one is at the expense of the other, which is to assume...as your spun it above...that the changes to Medicare/Medicaid were done specifically to reduce the tax rate on the wealthy and not done because they're gigantic entitlement programs that eat up a larger portion of our budget every single year and needs to be trimmed.

    And while I absolutely agree that the PR spinners for the Democrats will rely upon emotional arguments and that evil word that many on the left like to throw out about rich people...greeed....to make their point, and will be decently successful. The notion that its benefiting the wealthy more and hurting the elderly and lower class more doesn't bother me because rather than dealing with this emotionally and buying into the spin as you obviously have I'm actually taking a look at this while taking a step back.

    The goal here is to reduce spending, reduce the size of government, and spur revenue through increasing the economy.

    Medicare/Medicaid, next to Defense Spending and Social Security, is our biggest expense. Its going to have to be reformed and cut somehow. Now regardless of how you do it, if its going to be in any way more than just shuffling papers around on a desk, its going to negatively impact someone be it the current crop of seniors or the current crop of soon-to-be retiree's. So while I can absolutely understand and accept arguments that this is the wrong way to do it, the Helen Lovejoy like screaming of "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SENIORS" isn't going to sway me. Sorry...if there's going to be effective reform of it, they or the next crop is going to take some kind of hit.

    Similarly, everything in government needs to be cut. Now I've said part of what I dislike about the Ryan plan is it doesn't cut defense enough, but even defense is cut under it. When cutting a budget, ANY budget, you look towards things that are luxuries first...items that are good to have but aren't a necessity. In a home budget, its things like entertainment and leisure purposes. In a business, its stuff that's not easily justifable under your duties. In government, its programs that are helpful and nice to have but aren't a core government function. Cuts to some social programs, or attempts to shift them to the states, are going to affect the poor more than middle income and the wealthy. At the same time, these programs are generally the ones least essential to core government functions.

    Simplifying our tax code, removing many of the exemptions for businesses and individuals, and streamlining the process will help our budget. We will need to dedicate far less resources into these things, allowing for a shrinking of the government work force and the expenses associated with it. It also keeps people from manipulating the system through the variety of loopholes that are present in our swiss cheese tax code.

    That said, raising taxes on people may generate more income tax revenue, but damages the economy as it takes more money out of it thus causing a host of issues in and of itself. This notion that it will hurt to raise taxes at all on the middle or lower classes, even so much as a 1% tax, but that it will actually be benefial to do it to the "rich" in substantial amounts makes no sense. I would disagree, but would at least respect the Democrats, if they were actually pushing for a tax hike on everyone. But this obvioux and crystal clear attempts at buying votes and class warefare by villifying the evil horrible nasty greedy "wealthy" for daring to say "don't yoiu dare take anymore of my money" but sitting there going "we won't dare to take anymore of YOUR money" to the larger group of the population is disgusting, transparent, and frankly inconsistent. The Ryan plan would've significantly increased the amount of taxes the Rich were paying due to the elimination of the various deductions that largely applied to their returns, which would in turn take money out of their hands and out of the economy thus damaging it in the Republicans view. The notion of it being done to "benefit" the rich is nothing but hollow spin. The attempt is for the other cost cutting measures that would damage the rich not to also damage the economy by taking a large segment of money out of the actors of said economies hands.

    Any decrease in taxes of any kind is likely to affect the Rich more and affect the poor almost in no way.....because the Rich pay significantly more taxes and the poor pay next to none, so there's not many other options when cutting it then what I just stated. Similarly, most cuts of government budget is going to affect the poor and middle class more because they make up the majority of the population and thus make up the majority of those individuals benefiting from that government spending. Those two statements can be used for an emotional ploy to try and tug on peoples need to look out for themselves and make sure they get theirs while keeping those who they see as more successful being "knocked down a peg". But they aren't in and of themselves a negative or bad thing, but a simple reality of what happens when you attempt those two actions.

  7. #127
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Ain't no way I am quoting all that post and responding to it. I also will never, ever again comment that I was wordier in a post than you where. You win.

    All the information I am using is from either the Paul plan that I linked to, or from the CBO report on his plan. Paul's plan lists the reduction in tax rates, and the elimination of taxes, and the elimination of most deductions. Based on that, the middle class should see a tax increase, and the wealthy a tax decrease. Since the bill they passed does not seem to do anything except promise to do stuff, it is very hard to discuss specifics beyond that.

    No one argues that medicare and social security do not have to be fixed. However, vouchers to buy private insurance is about the worst possible solution, since it not increases costs by the amount cut, but further due to higher administrative costs and the need to make a profit inherent in private insurance companies. The issue is not that cuts are made, but how those cuts are made. Medicare is a complex problem, and to be honest, I do not have the solution. However, I much prefer a solution that works within the framework that already exists and does not shift senior medical insurance to private companies.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #128
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    All the information I am using is from either the Paul plan that I linked to, or from the CBO report on his plan.
    Which is a ridiculously small sample size of "all" the information out there. The CBO, while perhaps non-partisan, has been found to be far from the absolute authority on this kind of stuff. For example, see the huge error their estimate of Medicare Part D ended up being.

    Paul's plan lists the reduction in tax rates, and the elimination of taxes, and the elimination of most deductions. Based on that, the middle class should see a tax increase, and the wealthy a tax decrease.
    And this is what I don't get. I see you saying that, but I read that and see something entirely different than you with regards to the wealthy getting a tax decrease. I see it being likely that the wealthy by and large come out with a net wash, or at best a relatively small decrease. Similarly I think the middle classes increase is likely to be small based on nothing but the information you post there.

    No one argues that medicare and social security do not have to be fixed. However, vouchers to buy private insurance is about the worst possible solution, since it not increases costs by the amount cut, but further due to higher administrative costs and the need to make a profit inherent in private insurance companies. The issue is not that cuts are made, but how those cuts are made.
    And as I said, I'm all for people arguing its being done in a poor manner. I'm all for people arguing its not even needing to be fixed. My issue is people arguing that its being done not because the Republicans feel it needs to be fixed, or not because they feel it will help reduce costs, but rather to pay for the Rich's tax cut.

    Medicare is a complex problem, and to be honest, I do not have the solution. However, I much prefer a solution that works within the framework that already exists and does not shift senior medical insurance to private companies.
    And this I understand. You made an argument, can't remember in this thread or another, stating how you felt doing nothing was better than doing this because you felt this was worse than what we have now. And you know what, while I may disagree I can accept and respect that view point. Its what I and many other Republicans felt with regards to Health Care. I just hope all the liberals that are using that sort of argument now with regards to this weren't bashing Conservatives for "doing nothing" about Health Care or for saying that doing nothing was better than Obamacare.

  9. #129
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which is a ridiculously small sample size of "all" the information out there. The CBO, while perhaps non-partisan, has been found to be far from the absolute authority on this kind of stuff. For example, see the huge error their estimate of Medicare Part D ended up being.
    I grant you your point on the CBO, but it is still the most accurate and fair at making projections. I find it to be the most trustworthy, but when making projections, well, you never know.


    And this is what I don't get. I see you saying that, but I read that and see something entirely different than you with regards to the wealthy getting a tax decrease. I see it being likely that the wealthy by and large come out with a net wash, or at best a relatively small decrease. Similarly I think the middle classes increase is likely to be small based on nothing but the information you post there.
    My point is not the size. You are right, no one knows, and neither the bill nor the plan Ryan published gives enough information to judge. The point, and the one you seem to admit, is that the middle class is likely to see some tax increase, while the wealthy is likely to see some tax reduction. The relative size is entirely unknown since no one wants to give us enough facts to work with.


    And as I said, I'm all for people arguing its being done in a poor manner. I'm all for people arguing its not even needing to be fixed. My issue is people arguing that its being done not because the Republicans feel it needs to be fixed, or not because they feel it will help reduce costs, but rather to pay for the Rich's tax cut.
    What you are seeing is a confluence of issues in one bill. Taxes on wealthy go down, taxes on middle class go, expenses for the elderly go up. Those are not necessarily all related or caused by each other, but all are part of the bill.

    And this I understand. You made an argument, can't remember in this thread or another, stating how you felt doing nothing was better than doing this because you felt this was worse than what we have now. And you know what, while I may disagree I can accept and respect that view point. Its what I and many other Republicans felt with regards to Health Care. I just hope all the liberals that are using that sort of argument now with regards to this weren't bashing Conservatives for "doing nothing" about Health Care or for saying that doing nothing was better than Obamacare.
    I don't remember saying that, though it is possible. I find this plan damaging. I would point out while I supported the health care reform bill(Obamacare), it was far from what I thought was the best way to handle things. I felt for it, and for Medicare, small changes made over the course of years, with time to see what effect those changes have is the way to do things. In fact, my biggest problem with this plan is while some of the problems with the plan are evident, not all the problems are foreseeable, and those unforeseen changes scare me. When you consider the CBO scoring(ie the foreseeable), which says that health care costs for the elderly not only go up dramatically, but the help from the new voucher system will increase slower than health care costs will increase, and it will raise costs for insurance for every one, the unforeseen could be downright catastrophic.

    While both Medicare and Social Security issues are getting immediate and we have to begin making changes now, we do not have to solve the problem in it's entirety yet. Rushing into solutions is the exact wrong way to solve the problem, especially with things as complicated as this.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #130
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I grant you your point on the CBO, but it is still the most accurate and fair at making projections. I find it to be the most trustworthy, but when making projections, well, you never know.
    I can understand that.

    My point is not the size. You are right, no one knows, and neither the bill nor the plan Ryan published gives enough information to judge. The point, and the one you seem to admit, is that the middle class is likely to see some tax increase, while the wealthy is likely to see some tax reduction. The relative size is entirely unknown since no one wants to give us enough facts to work with.
    My whole thing is though, its irrelevant to even talk about in a negative or positive way without knowing the size, and you're obviously talking about the disparity in a negative way. If I give one person $1 and another person $100 and send them both on the way, that's a disparity that probably needs to be talked about. If I gave one $99 and the other $100 its not really a big deal. If, when more accurate numbers comes out, this looks like its going to largely increase the tax on the middle class or a large decrease on the Rich, then I think you may have a point in talking about it. Right now its trying to take something very ambiguous and put it out there.

    And while I agree with you that there's a likelihood that this could result on a possible increase to the middle class or a decrease to the wealth, I don't agree with you that its a given. I very much think there's the potential that the removal of the various deductions could, on average, negate the decrease the tax rate would have on the rich. I think the slight raise on the middle class is more of a sure thing than the reduction on the rich.

    What you are seeing is a confluence of issues in one bill. Taxes on wealthy go down, taxes on middle class go, expenses for the elderly go up. Those are not necessarily all related or caused by each other, but all are part of the bill.
    Saying that they're all part of the bill and saying that ones happening so the other can happen are significantly different things.

    I don't remember saying that, though it is possible. I find this plan damaging. I would point out while I supported the health care reform bill(Obamacare), it was far from what I thought was the best way to handle things. I felt for it, and for Medicare, small changes made over the course of years, with time to see what effect those changes have is the way to do things. In fact, my biggest problem with this plan is while some of the problems with the plan are evident, not all the problems are foreseeable, and those unforeseen changes scare me. When you consider the CBO scoring(ie the foreseeable), which says that health care costs for the elderly not only go up dramatically, but the help from the new voucher system will increase slower than health care costs will increase, and it will raise costs for insurance for every one, the unforeseen could be downright catastrophic.
    I'll have to look for the exact quote. You didn't say it specifically as I did but that seemed to be the gist.

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •