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

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..........................

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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..........................

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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!

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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!

Click to expand...

You are so right, that 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt needs the money, why? because a bureaucrat needs to be fed.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

You are so right, that 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt needs the money, why? because a bureaucrat needs to be fed.

Click to expand...

Well, you're ignoring the posts entirely now, so I'll take a break for a while.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

Can you cite some data on that?

Click to expand...

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.pdf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care
Tens of thousands fled socialized Canadian medicine in 2013 | The Daily Caller
Seeking relief outside Canada' 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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

maquiscat said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because of Canada's British heritage.:lamo

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And I do!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Good, now we can put that Clinton myth to bed

And everyone has operated on a so-called unified budget since LBJ or so.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

Apparently I am because the Clinton tax reduction act of 1997 is being ignored

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.