MERGED: The Politics Thread

[3deroticer]

Fixed that, for me.   

I didn't know that Bush could read? I think the prompter for him would have to upside down.

[Shara]

Knock your blood pressure out! I just have never seen you so stubborn to drum up so much drama base on other answer to question I never ask or solicit from you.

seriously?............................

[3deroticer]

seriously?............................

?

[Shara]

that's basically what we've been telling you for the last day or so

[Palomine]

Palomine, I didn't come to you, nor did I lobby you, you said you have been trying to convince me that its not about racism, talk about drama, I am fine with that if that what you think. No worries. hanging a black man in a tree is a aggressive treatment toward a group of people base on skin color. How you define racism is beyond me! I use the dictionary, so if you want to find hundred of friend to change the meaning in the dictionary, go for it. Knock your blood pressure out! I just have never seen you so stubborn to drum up so much drama base on other answer to question I never ask or solicit from you.

If its about a racist, than that was my other question, has McCain ever been racist toward African-American? If he has, then he would be a racist toward blacks, if he hasn't, then the joke falls flat, and paints a lie about his character deeming the satire as unfair as most of "JJ" cartoon depicts Obama as being a Muslim.

Anyway, your still going in circle on this avoiding the question and making up new one for yourself, that I don't give a shit about. But at least you made one step forward with the help of CarlT that its about racist. Show me where McCain has been racist toward blacks, and I'll take it back that the joke went over the line in unfairness toward McCain. These are the fact the joke is base on racism. The punchline drew a reaction of Obama as being not happy with McCain comment.

Congratulations 3D, with this post you've officially attained the rank of Grand Maroon. As such, you may now STFU when it comes to this matter and my role in it: as I've done before when you've misinterpreted something and over-reacted as is your wont, I went out of my way to assuage your concerns and clarify the situation for you... and as my reward (yet again- when will I ever learn the pointlessness of such attempts w/you?) you simply continue to berate me for 'avoiding the question' and other such patently false nonsense.

The fact is 3D that you're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make your opinion a fact. In this case, you are the only person here who's managed to get themselves worked up into a lather about that post... the ONLY one of all who've looked at it. I'm frankly tired of your crap... in small doses it's tolerable and sometimes even a bit charming, but like a few others here, you don't know when to stop. Whether this is due to a lack of social graces, or maybe even to whatever causes your posts in general to be so difficult to read sometimes... whatever language or grammar issues you have... I don't know.

Regardless, I'm telling you now to drop this issue. You've had your say: everyone knows how you feel about that post ad nauseum. Now stop posting about it COMPLETELY as you've crossed the line from free expression into trolling potentially damaging to community morale. Just to give you one little last bit of help (in protecting you from yourself) I'm going to LOCK this thread for an indeterminate period of time... so if you insist upon ignoring my advice and decide to keep foaming at the mouth about this, you'll have to do so someplace else... bearing in mind that if you do, you'll be violating your User Agreement by ignoring guidance from a moderator.

I hope for your sake that you've got the common sense to just drop this ill-reasoned crusade of yours.

[Q_BE]

Since the Obama thread is down for the indefinite count, I suppose this means the Right-Wing Tavern is up for business once again. I encourage JJ to enter this thread with me to continue to proselytize to the über-leftists entrenched here.

TOP TEN DISASTERS OF OBAMACARE
Published 3/30/2010 by Kathryn Nix
========================

President Obama recently signed gargantuan health care legislation into law that will have major ramifications for every man, woman, and **09** in the United States. This newly enacted law originates from the Senate health care bill (the “Patients Protection and Affordability Act”) and a sidecar reconciliation bill that originated in the House. Between these two bills are countless provisions that grow federal spending, increase burdensome taxes, and put federal rules and regulations between Americans and control over their health care.

Outlined here are the 10 major ways in which the Left’s so-called health care reform will hurt Americans.

1. New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official scorekeeper for Congress, sets the projected cost of the health care package from 2010 to 2019 at $940 billion, reducing the deficit by $138 billion.[1] Unfortunately, the true cost of the new law will be far greater.

The CBO is proficient at its work, but it is required to score legislative proposals based on assumptions about the future behavior of Congress—not according to its more likely behavior. The authors of this legislation took advantage of this in crafting the language of the bill, employing several budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper.

These include omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, known as the “doc fix,” double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying the expensive provisions of the bill. When these costs are accounted for, the new law is more likely to cost closer to $2.5 trillion.[2] Such levels of spending will not only negate any projected deficit reduction but increase the federal deficit further than would prior law.

2. Bending the Cost Curve in the Wrong Direction

The provisions of the legislation aimed at reducing health care spending are reactionary, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes of growth in spending.[3] Instead of reducing spending in health care, the bill will increase overall health spending in the U.S. by $222 billion between now and 2019.[4]

In addition, CBO reports that premiums in the non-group market will increase by 10–13 percent as a result of the bill.[5]

3. New Taxes and Mandates Hinder Economic Growth

The new law requires employers who do not offer insurance deemed adequate by the federal government to pay a fine of $2,000 for every employee, exempting the first 30 employees. Employers forced to pay this penalty will have to reduce wages, cut jobs, or rely more heavily on part-time workers. Any of these options will be bad for the economy.[6]

The health care package also taxes investment income as a means to provide additional revenue to pay for the bill. The tax will discourage investment in the U.S. economy, thereby decreasing capital and reducing the potential for economic growth.

Heritage Foundation analysts Karen Campbell, Ph.D., and Guinevere Nell found that this tax, at President Obama’s proposed rate of 2.9 percent, would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion a year.[7] The rate included in new law is 3.8 percent, so the actual effects are likely to be even more dramatic.

4. Regulations Grow Government Control over Health Care

The new law empowers the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define a required benefits package that every health plan in America must include. Moreover, the law now allows the federal government to dictate the prices that insurers set through new age rating regulations and medical-loss ratio requirements.

The bill also opens the door for a de facto public option by creating government-sponsored national health plans to compete against private health plans in the health insurance exchanges the states are required to establish. The national health plans would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which currently runs the Federal Civil Service and also administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which serves federal workers and retirees.[8] OPM would make the rules for these government-sponsored plans.

Because of this difference in regulatory authority, it would be very easy for the OPM-administered health plans to secure an unfair advantage against other plans in the state insurance exchanges. The reason: They will not be subjected to the exact same rules and regulations that are set by HHS for private health insurers. This could result in a gaming of the system in favor of the government-sponsored health plans. It is also possible that the government-sponsored health plans could be protected from insolvency through taxpayer bailouts.[9] Government sponsored enterprises are usually “too big to fail.”

5. Expanding Broken Entitlement Programs

Under the new law, Medicaid will be extended to all Americans who fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. This is one of the primary means through which coverage is increased among the uninsured. According to CBO, of the 32 million newly insured in 2019, half will receive their coverage from Medicaid.[10]

As it stands, Medicaid is a low-quality, poorly functioning program that fails to meet the needs of the Americans it serves. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have great difficulty finding a doctor who will treat them at the program’s low reimbursement rates and are more likely than the uninsured to rely on emergency rooms for care. Heritage Foundation Health Policy Fellow Brian Blase reports that, following an expansion of Tennessee’s Medicaid program, health outcomes in Tennessee actually deteriorated and Tennessee’s mortality rate declined at a much slower rate than surrounding states that did not expand their Medicaid programs.[11]

6. Burdening State Budgets

The reconciliation bill ensures that the federal government will cover the expansion of Medicaid benefits in all 50 states until 2017. Federal matching rates will decrease from 100 percent in 2017 to 93 percent in 2019, resting permanently there. Moreover, the 100 percent federal match rate does not include administrative costs, which Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier finds will accrue a cost to the states of $9.6 billion between 2014 and 2019.[12]

The health care reconciliation bill further adds to several states’ new costs by changing Medicaid funding formulas. The new law would increase payments for primary care providers to match Medicare payment rates. In the initial years of the expansion, the federal government will provide 100 percent of the funding. However, after two years, federal funding for increases in provider payment rates will end, leaving states to either find a way to pick up the cost or go back to lower reimbursement rates. This provision would thus only temporarily solve the problems Medicaid beneficiaries have finding primary care, instead digging an even bigger financial hole for the states, whose budgets are already in the red due to decreasing revenues.[13]

7. Neglecting Medicare

Medicare is due to become insolvent in 2016, and long-term unfunded liabilities exceed $38 trillion.[14] To address this, Medicare provider payment rates are scheduled to decrease annually according to the Sustainable Growth Rate. However, Congress votes to suspend these cuts every year, as it is a well-known fact that severe cuts in provider payments would result in many physicians refusing to see Medicare patients altogether.

Congress did not include a permanent way to repeal and pay for the cuts to physician reimbursement rates in their health care bills. Instead, they added a similar and even more unlikely “fix” to create savings in Medicare: more than half a trillion dollars in cuts to the program. These include billions in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program, which creates savings for seniors and gives them more options and control over their care. These savings—assuming they ever occur—will be used not to extend the solvency of the Medicare program but to fund the new entitlement programs that are now law.

8. Creates Discrimination Against Low Income Workers

The employer mandate requires employers to offer a federally defined level of insurance or pay a fine. Moreover, even if an employer does offer insurance but their low-income employees qualify and elect to enter the health exchange instead, the employer will pay a $3,000 penalty for each employee who makes this choice. This is in addition to the cost of offering insurance.

In several cases, depending on the proportion of an employer’s workforce that comes from low-income families, it would be more beneficial for employers to drop coverage altogether rather than pay for the increased penalty for employees in the exchange. This creates an incentive for employers to avoid hiring workers from low-income families, hurting those who need jobs the most.[15]

9. Exchange Eligibility Creates Inequity

The new law will create generous subsidies for Americans to purchase insurance in the newly created health exchanges. However, these subsidies will be available only to those who fall between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level and are not offered federally defined sufficient assistance by their employer to purchase health insurance. All other Americans—including those in the very same income bracket—will not get subsidies but will instead rely only on the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance for federal assistance to purchase coverage. For workers with comparable incomes, the difference between this and the generous subsidy to buy insurance in the exchange will be thousands of dollars.[16]

The federal government will thus create a gross inequity between Americans making similar incomes. It is unlikely that this will be tolerated for long by the American public, which will instead demand that the subsidies be made more equitable. However, doing so will add enormously to the cost of the government overhaul of the health care system.

10. Questions of Constitutionality

The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. This represents an unprecedented extension of congressional power—never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase a good or service as a stipulation of being a lawful citizen.[17]

The health care overhaul also diminishes the federalist system upon which the U.S. was founded, which grants certain powers to the states in order to limit those of the federal government. The new law undermines state authority through the individual mandate to purchase insurance, a mandate to expand Medicaid (a state–federal joint program), and several new federal regulations of the insurance industry.

The End of the Beginning

These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the President’s health care overhaul will have on the U.S. As bits and pieces of the law are implemented, its effects on states, businesses, and Americans of every ilk will become manifest. Congress and the American people should not view passage of the liberals’ health care package as the end of the debate on reform. Rather, the long and tedious journey toward restoring personal control over health care dollars and decisions is just beginning.

Kathryn Nix is a Research Assistant in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation

[1] Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010,” March 18, 2010, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf (March 29, 2010).

[2] James C. Capretta, “Obamacare Will Break the Bank, Not Reduce the Deficit,” The Foundry, March 18, 2010, at http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/obamacare-will-break-the-bank-not-cut-the-deficit/.

[3] Jason Fodeman and Robert A. Book, “‘Bending the Curve’: What Really Drives Health Care Spending,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2369, February 17, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/Bending-the-Curve-What-Really-Drives-Health-Care-Spending.

[4] Richard S. Foster, Chief Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ as Passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009,” January 8, 2010, at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2010-01-08.pdf (March 29, 2010).

[5] Congressional Budget Office, “An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” November 30, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf (March 29, 2010).

[6] John Ligon and Robert A. Book, “The House Health Fix: Even Higher Tax Penalties for Employers,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2837, March 19, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-House-Health-Fix-Even-Higher-Tax-Penalties-for-Employers.

[7] Karen Campbell and Guinevere Nell, “The President’s Health Proposal: Taxing Investments Undermines Economic Recovery,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2817, February 25, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/The-Presidents-Health-Proposal-Taxing-Investments-Undermines-Economic-Recovery.

[8] Robert Moffit and Kathryn Nix, “The Public Health Plan Reincarnated: New—and Troubling—Powers for OPM,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2364, January 21, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/The-Public-Health-Plan-Reincarnated-New-and-Troubling-Powers-for-OPM.

[9] The Honorable Linda Springer, Donald Devine, the Honorable Dan Blair, and Robert Moffit, “The Office of Personnel Management: A Power Player in America’s Health Insurance Markets?” Heritage Lecture No. 1145, January 20, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Office-of-Personnel-Management-A-Power-Player-in-Americas-Health-Insurance-Markets.

[10] Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010.”

[11] Brian Blase, “Obama’s Proposed Medicaid Expansion: Lessons from TennCare,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2821, March 3, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Proposed-Medicaid-Expansion-Lessons-from-TennCare.

[12] Edmund Haislmaier, “Expanding Medicaid: The Real Costs to the States,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2757, January 14, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Expanding-Medicaid-The-Real-Costs-to-the-States.

[13] Dennis Smith, “Medicaid Expansion Ignores States’ Fiscal Crises,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2744, January 5, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Medicaid-Expansion-Ignores-States-Fiscal-Crises.

[14] See Boards of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, “2009 Annual Report,” May 12, 2009, at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf (March 29, 2010).

[15] Ligon and Book, “The House Health Fix.”

[16] James C. Capretta, “The Senate Health Care Bill’s ‘Firewall’ Creates Disparate Subsidies,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2730, December 11, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/The-Senate-Health-Care-Bills-Firewall-Creates-Disparate-Subsidies.

[17] Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd Gaziano, “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 49, December 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional

========================

It's clear by now that the monstrosity that is Obamacare is going to hasten the bankruptcy of this country, whether or not it improves healthcare now or in the future, and I'm not even conceding that point. People in this country are fed up with politicians shoving rules, regulations, and laws down their throat and then having the politicians blame them for the failures of their laws when the people have trouble following them or try to subvert them in order to retain a modicum of freedom.

If it interests you to know, it was the passage of Obamacare that drove me to political action this election season. I'm actively helping in my local district for all my Republican candidates, and I'm especially involved in my state's governor's race. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore. I refuse to let a fractional MINORITY of thought in this country (liberalism, socialism, Marxism, whatever) drive it to destruction in order to "get even" with the greedy SOB capitalists.

Q-"We must repeal Obamacare"-BE

[Shara]

close 1 thread, apply same strategy to new thread.


ey 3dero, wanna continue your bitchin' here so this thread gets closed as well?

[SamV]

"Q-"We must repeal Obamacare"-BE"  -- Good Luck with that Q cause It Ain't Gonna Happen!

And BTW in case you weren't aware of it the score currentLEE stands at Obamacare: 1; Opponents: 0.
 
That's because federal judge George Steeh ruled last week that the most controversial part of the Health Care Reform Act (I hate the term "Obamacare" ) regarding the one in which the government requires Americans to purchase health insurance passes constitutionally under section 8, of Article 1 of the USC. So the suit filed by the Thomas More Law Center challenging Congress's right to impose such a requirement was rejected by the court, and thus they got a kick in their ... ah, arguments.

So right off the bat- Item 10 in your little presentation piece above can be tossed out the window.

But never fear I'm sure there are enough Right Wing masochists out there who will try to bring this up in court again.  

  

[3deroticer]

"Q-"We must repeal Obamacare"-BE"  -- Good Luck with that Q cause It Ain't Gonna Happen!

And BTW in case you weren't aware of it the score currentLEE stands at Obamacare: 1; Opponents: 0.
 
That's because federal judge George Steeh ruled last week that the most controversial part of the Health Care Reform Act (I hate the term "Obamacare" ) regarding the one in which the government requires Americans to purchase health insurance passes constitutionally under section 8, of Article 1 of the USC. So the suit filed by the Thomas More Law Center challenging Congress's right to impose such a requirement was rejected by the court, and thus they got a kick in their ... ah, arguments.

So right off the bat- Item 10 in your little presentation piece above can be tossed out the window.

But never fear I'm sure there are enough Right Wing masochists out there who will try to bring this up in court again.  

  

Wasn't number 10 a provision that the conservative insurance company push for? If I remember that was a compromise that the right wingers wanted. Which I don't get the posturing of opposing something that they wanted in.

Yeah number 10 looney out the door!

[onion_writer]

I sure prefer Obamacare to crappy old Bushcare.

'nough said!

[rtpoe]

Interesting. President Obama's comprehensive health care reform legislation is essentially identical (in its key areas) to a plan enacted by a Republican (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts). And here the Republicans are trashing it.

I also note that during the Bush II administration, the Republicans controlled both the presidency and Congress for something like six years, and as far as I can recall, not once did they even bother to propose a health care plan of their own...

Seems to me that if President Obama proposed legislation that said, in its entirety, "Kittens are Nice", the Republicans would be all over him because it doesn't account for those people allergic to cats and harms those who prefer puppies.

[Q_BE]

Interesting. President Obama's comprehensive health care reform legislation is essentially identical (in its key areas) to a plan enacted by a Republican (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts). And here the Republicans are trashing it.

Romney has never been someone I have supported wholeheartedly. He's more moderate than any Republican or Democrat gives him credit. A Palin-Romney ticket might work in 2012, IMO, but he's gonna have a tough row to hoe if he wants the presidential nomination—we're not taking any damn RINOs in 2012.

I also note that during the Bush II administration, the Republicans controlled both the presidency and Congress for something like six years, and as far as I can recall, not once did they even bother to propose a health care plan of their own...

You're WRONG. In fact, not five days after his reinauguration…

Bush Promotes Health Savings Accounts—From the Washington Post, January 25, 2005

President Bush laid out a plan yesterday for reducing the nation's spiraling health care costs, proposing tax credits to encourage expansion of health savings accounts and calling for allowing small businesses to pool together for health coverage across state lines.

The main element of Bush's plan would be health savings accounts, which allow people to save money tax-free. The accounts are used for medical expenses up to a preset deductible amount, and once that threshold is met, insurance takes over. Any money not used can roll over from one year to the next, and the cost of the policies is usually lower than that of traditional health insurance plans.

If that's not the makings of healthcare reform, I don't know what is.

Anyway, if you're wondering why it was not reported or over-shadowed by other things:

1. About 9 months into the presidency, we were attacked on our soil by Islamofascist terrorists with our airplanes into our buildings.

2. We went into a 9/11 recession; Bush passed the tax cuts that got us out of that recession (which are currently about to expire and raise rates on EVERYONE in America, BTW).

3. Saddam Hussein was actively trying to procure WMDs (whether or not he actually did). We got ourselves involved in two wars, both as a result of real terrorism fears.

4. Bush tried to push Social Security reform post-2004 election; the Democrats obstructed everything from judicial nominees to budgets; held hearings on the possible impeachment of Bush, and generally said "NO" to everything the Repubs tried to do while the GOP was in power.

5. In 2007, the Dems, following the 2006 election, took over the House and Senate, and subsequently the budget deficit went from about $150 billion to the reputedly "awful" 400-some-odd billion, and now Obama's tripled that in two straight budgets, but it's Bush who got us into this mess, and it's Bush who failed to pursue healthcare reform? Wrong answer.

Seems to me that if President Obama proposed legislation that said, in its entirety, "Kittens are Nice", the Republicans would be all over him because it doesn't account for those people allergic to cats and harms those who prefer puppies.

Of course, the legislation for said "Kittens R Nice" bill would be 2,000 pages long, and not one member of Congress would have read it, and it would add $150 billion to the deficit, but I digress…

Q-"I smell a strawman"-BE

[Siria]

You're WRONG. In fact, not five days after his reinauguration…

...

If that's not the makings of healthcare reform, I don't know what is.

Anyway, if you're wondering why it was not reported or over-shadowed by other things:

1. About 9 months into the presidency, ...

2. We went into a 9/11 recession; ...

3. Saddam Hussein was actively trying to procure WMDs ...

All three of these things happened in Bush's first term, yet you're alleging Bush tooted a health savings account plan during his second term. So either you've forgotten there's four years in-between or you believe the President has a time machine in the Oval Office.

In any case, where was the bill? The GOP still held Congress from 2005-2006. Or were they too busy trying to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to make sure gays and lesbians didn't get their fundamental rights to worry about heath care?

held hearings on the possible impeachment of Bush, and generally said "NO" to everything the Repubs tried to do while the GOP was in power.

What hearings are you referring to? Show some evidence. There wasn't a single hearing about impeaching Bush and you're just making shit up to satisfy your warped view of reality.

[3deroticer]

How did the Dems say "No" to everything the GOP was doing when they had closed door meetings?

[Q_BE]

All three of these things happened in Bush's first term, yet you're alleging Bush tooted a health savings account plan during his second term. So either you've forgotten there's four years in-between or you believe the President has a time machine in the Oval Office.

I was offering a logical explanation and timeline of events for why healthcare reform seemed so inconspicuous during the Bush Administration, which is why Rtpoe might get the wrong-headed idea that he did not press for healthcare reform at all, as Rtpoe stated above.

In any case, where was the bill? The GOP still held Congress from 2005-2006. Or were they too busy trying to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to make sure gays and lesbians didn't get their fundamental rights to worry about heath care?

Try these several Republican-sponsored pieces of legislation on for size:

[109th] H.R.2203 : Patients' Health Care Reform Act
Sponsor: Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] (introduced 5/5/2005)      Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Education and the Workforce
Latest Major Action: 5/31/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

[109th] H.R.3075 : Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2005
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/27/2005)      Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

[109th] H.R.4838 : Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2006
Sponsor: Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22] (introduced 3/1/2006)      Cosponsors (9)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.

[109th] S.2772 : Health Partnership Act
Sponsor: Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] (introduced 5/9/2006)      Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Full disclosure: there were other Democrat-sponsored bills, but I'm sure they were all crap.

What hearings are you referring to? Show some evidence. There wasn't a single hearing about impeaching Bush and you're just making shit up to satisfy your warped view of reality.

Okay, I misspoke. They merely THREATENED impeachment hearings at every occasion, which is just as bad.

Let me count the number of articles I can find in 10 minutes referencing Democrat threats of impeachment during Bush's second term…

1. The National Ledger: Impeach President Bush? Consider the Alternative

Impeach President Bush? Consider the Alternative
By Roger Simon
May 2, 2007

Rep. John Murtha wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, and he says he is willing to impeach President Bush to do it.  At the very least, the Pennsylvania Democrat is willing to threaten Bush with impeachment until Bush bends to his will.  There are two ways to describe Murtha's tactics: one would be "gutsy." And the other would be "dumb." I think I am tending toward the latter.
…
…
…
Schieffer asked him if he was serious and if impeachment was really "an option on the table, I'm just saying that's one way to influence a president," Murtha said.

Yes, it is one way. But a very bad one. The Constitution says the House of Representatives can impeach the president, vice president and other civil officers for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

It doesn't say anything about using impeachment to strong-arm a president to bend to your will.

If Murtha thinks George Bush is running a hopeless war in an incompetent manner, that is one thing.

But if John Murtha actually thinks George Bush is a criminal -- and thinks he can prove it -- then he should go ahead and try to impeach him. It takes a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict.

But Murtha should not use impeachment as a political tactic. It is wrong. And it is counterproductive.

The article goes on, but I don't need to quote all of it.

2. The Washington Post (reprinted in the Seattle Times): Impeachment idea sparks debate

Impeachment idea sparks debate
By Michael Powell
The Washington Post

HOLYOKE, Mass. — To drive through New England's mill towns and curling country roads is to journey into its impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.

Window cleaner Ira Clemons stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.

"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war — but it is.

"I was really upset about 9/11; so don't lie to me."

It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency; there are only 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea.

But talk bubbles up in many parts of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge.

"The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantánamo Bay detainees.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to urge Congress to impeach Bush, as have state Democratic parties, including those of New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

A Zogby International poll showed that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed former President Clinton should be impeached during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Democrats remain far from unified. Prominent party leaders — and a large majority of those in Congress — say talk of impeachment and censure reflect the polarization of politics.

"Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution.

"Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq."

The GOP establishment has welcomed the threat. With Bush's approval ratings lower than for any president in recent history and midterm elections in the offing, Republican leaders view impeachment as kerosene poured on the bonfires of their party base.

The article goes on in the same vein.

3. OpEdNews.com: A Case For Impeachment

November 22, 2006

A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT

By Malachy Kilbride

Since the recent midterm elections I have wondered what will happen now that both houses of the US Congress are run by the Democrats. Specifically I think about the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and how peace will prevail with justice for the Iraqi and Afghan people. I think about the US soldiers sent off to fight in a war that was based on lies and deceptions. I think about the families who have to deal with the loss of loved ones killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the families that have to deal with their loved ones coming home with permanent physical and mental injuries. I think of the lies that put all of these people in these tragic situations. It was all for lies and we know it. I also think of the loss of our civil liberties and the domestic spying here and the use of torture and secret renditions and detentions carried out in our names, with our tax money, and most importantly with our knowledge. We know that torture is practiced by our government. We know that some of our troops are raping, torturing, and killing innocent people in Iraq. And now I wonder what will be done for the sake of justice? One starting point is impeachment for without a doubt President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to name just a few, have committed high crimes.

This was posted not weeks after the 2006 elections. The Democrats were obsessed with driving Bush out of office, to the exclusion of everything else, especially meaningful legislation. I'd say it's hard to get things done with such an opposition party.

Q-"Need I say more?"-BE

[TheZookie007]

I sure prefer Obamacare to crappy old Bushcare.

'nough said!

Say what you want about the Bush Health Care Plan, but compared to the Health Care Plan that Pres. Obama successfully passed through the eye of the needle that is Congress, it definitely is simpler to comprehend, being that it can be explained in just three words: DON'T GET SICK.

[pedonbio]

The last time I read a cut-and-paste post Bill Clinton was president.

Is Q still trying to say something?

[Q_BE]

The last time I read a cut-and-paste post Bill Clinton was president.

Is Q still trying to say something?

This post and this post weren't cut-and-paste, mister. They were documented argument responses to arguments made.

Q-"Read and you might learn something"-BE

[3deroticer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoTpLr-mBLc&feature=player_embedded#!

Let me know if you are going to be in the news bombing something up!

[TheZookie007]

2. We went into a 9/11 recession; Bush passed the tax cuts that got us out of that recession

The Bush tax cuts "got us out of that recession"? Pass me some of that wacky tabaccy you're smokin', son.

[Q_BE]

The Bush tax cuts "got us out of that recession"? Pass me some of that wacky tabaccy you're smokin', son.

The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit

Try reading that all the way through. Seriously, try. It's an excellent review of what our fiscal problems are. I'll excerpt a few choice quotes to tantalize your taste buds.

"The annual federal budget deficit is projected to reach 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020—more than three times the historical average of 2.3 percent. This dramatic increase in the federal deficit will be exclusively the result of increasing spending, not declining revenues (or the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts). Rapid growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and interest payments on the national debt will cause virtually all of this new spending. Any sustainable fix must therefore address the source of the problem—rapidly rising entitlement spending."

"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit. The vast majority of the shift was due to higher spending and slower-than-projected economic growth."

"President Barack Obama’s assertion that most future deficits will result from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Medicare drug entitlement is based on faulty methodology, but is still wrong even using that methodology. Above-average spending, not below-average revenues, accounts for 92 percent of rising budget deficits by 2014 and 100 percent by 2017. Nearly all rising spending will occur in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest payments."



"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts accounted for just 14 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit. Even if these tax cuts had never been enacted, spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade, and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007."

"[A]ccording to President Obama, the massive budget deficits are President Bush’s fault, but the data do not support this assertion. President Bush implemented the three policies mentioned by President Obama in the early 2000s. Yet by 2007—the last year before the recession—the budget deficit had stabilized at $161 billion. Since the combined annual cost of these three Bush-era policies is now relatively stable, they cannot have suddenly caused a trillion-dollar leap in budget deficits beginning in 2009."

"[T]he 2020 budget deficit is projected at 8.3 percent of GDP—6.0 percentage points above the historical average. This will be the net effect of spending rising to 6.2 percentage points above the historical average, compared to tax revenues rising to 0.2 percentage point above the historical average."

"Growing long-term budget deficits are exclusively the result of rising spending, not declining revenues. Thus, common sense suggests that most reforms should occur on the spending side. Given the magnitude of the long-term spending increase, even splitting the difference between spending cuts and tax increases would leave the highest sustained spending—and tax burden—in American history. Permanently transforming the federal government in this manner would slow economic growth and harm families and businesses.

Rapid growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and interest payments on the national debt will cause virtually all of this new spending. The annual cost of these four expenditures will surge from $1.6 trillion this year to $3.5 trillion in 2020. This will cause massive budget deficits in the next decade and must be the focus of any serious effort to reduce the budget deficit."

Of course, even this article assumes the Bush tax cuts will not expire in the next ten years. Given the Democrats seem not to want to extend them past 2010, the situation will become even worse than this guy projects because tax revenues will drop steeply as people lose income due to decreased economic activity as a result of the higher taxes that ostensibly are supposed to create revenue.

Q-"So there"-BE

[3deroticer]

The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit

Try reading that all the way through. Seriously, try. It's an excellent review of what our fiscal problems are. I'll excerpt a few choice quotes to tantalize your taste buds.

Of course, even this article assumes the Bush tax cuts will not expire in the next ten years. Given the Democrats seem not to want to extend them past 2010, the situation will become even worse than this guy projects because tax revenues will drop steeply as people lose income due to decreased economic activity as a result of the higher taxes that ostensibly are supposed to create revenue.

Q-"So there"-BE

So far, the Dems have voted for extending the tax cut, and the Republican have block it. What the Dems have not vote for is the wealthiest to have extended tax cut, and that's all the Republican care about is the top 2% of those that make over $250,000 per year.

[Shara]

the war is not even in that diagram?

[SamV]

Well to fix all those deficit and entitlement funding problems Q all the Repubs have to do when they get in to power is tax the hell out of the 20% of the Americans that earns 85% of the country's wealth.

And after a few years at imposing a 50% or higher tax rate on those individuals these cyclical funding gaps will finally be a thing of the past and the Repubs can finally claim they balanced the federal budget. Hoorah!

[Siria]

Try these several Republican-sponsored pieces of legislation on for size:

[109th] H.R.2203 : Patients' Health Care Reform Act
Sponsor: Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] (introduced 5/5/2005)      Cosponsors (1)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Education and the Workforce
Latest Major Action: 5/31/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

[109th] H.R.3075 : Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2005
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/27/2005)      Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

[109th] H.R.4838 : Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2006
Sponsor: Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22] (introduced 3/1/2006)      Cosponsors (9)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.

[109th] S.2772 : Health Partnership Act
Sponsor: Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] (introduced 5/9/2006)      Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Wow, a Senate bill with 4 cosponsors! A House bill with 9!

Um, dude. Thousands of bills get proposed every Congress. The vast majority of them never see the light of day beyond getting referred to a committee, which proceeds to ignore them.

The fact that not a single one of these bills ever got a hearing in committee (much less a vote) indicates that there wasn't ever really a credible proposal with even a residual amount of buy-in from Congress.

Okay, I misspoke. They merely THREATENED impeachment hearings at every occasion, which is just as bad.

...
1. The National Ledger: Impeach President Bush? Consider the Alternative

Murtha was not a leader in the Democratic caucus. His only leadership role ever was being a minor Subcommittee chair, and he only even got that because he was such a long-serving member.

He wouldn't even have had the ability to hold hearings, even if he wanted to.

2. The Washington Post (reprinted in the Seattle Times): Impeachment idea sparks debate

...

3. OpEdNews.com: A Case For Impeachment

Again, nothing even resembling a credible threat to do so, just ramblings from people on the ideological fringe. Not unlike current calls to impeach Obama, actually.

[Q_BE]

the war is not even in that diagram?

There are more diagrams if you go to the full article link. I can only post one a day per 1-1-1.

So far, the Dems have voted for extending the tax cut, and the Republican have block it. What the Dems have not vote for is the wealthiest to have extended tax cut, and that's all the Republican care about is the top 2% of those that make over $250,000 per year.

WRONGO! From no less than State-Controlled CNN: Key Democrats split with Obama on taxes

September 08, 2010
From Ted Barrett
CNN Congressional Producer

Despite President Obama's accusation Wednesday that Republicans are holding middle class income tax cuts "hostage" by tying them to an extension of tax cuts for wealthier Americans, the reality is several Democratic senators also oppose allowing President Bush's tax cuts for higher earners to expire.

Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut have each publicly expressed concern about the impact of raising taxes, even on the well-to-do, during an economic downturn.

"The general rule of thumb would be you don't want to do tax changes, tax increases...until the recovery is on more solid ground," Conrad said recently, summarizing their view.

Each has said the tax cuts should be extended at least temporarily.

Senate Democratic leaders know it will be virtually impossible to pass a controversial tax bill without the support of all their members but intend to press ahead with the debate later this month. They believe the political and fiscal arguments are on their side and that allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire is "the consensus position of the caucus," even if a few Democrats oppose doing so, according to a top Senate Democratic leadership aide.

"There is bipartisan consensus that we should not raise taxes," retorted a senior senate Republican leadership aide, seizing on the division in the Democratic ranks.

The GOP aide didn't rule out a compromise that involved passing a short-term extension, a proposal put forth by House Majority Leader John Boehner. "If the only way to pass a bill that didn't raise taxes would to pass a temporary extension, we'd be open to talking about it," said the aide.

But the Democratic aide doubted Republicans would seriously work to help Democrats pass a bill this close to the November election.

"I don't believe the Republicans are interested in compromise," the aide said.

So, the CNN people said the Democrats wanted to address the tax cuts issue in September? Alrighty, then. Guess what they really did.

Dems barely get votes to adjourn after floor speech

By Jordan Fabian  -  09/29/10 12:26 PM ET

House Democrats on Wednesday [9/29/10] barely won a 210-209 vote to adjourn the House without extending the Bush tax cuts.

Thirty-nine House Democrats voted against adjournment after Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged opposition to the motion in a floor speech that said it would be irresponsible for Congress to leave without providing certainty on the tax issue. Dozens of Democrats in tough races voted against adjourning.

"Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress a chance to vote on extending tax rates," Boehner said.

Boehner's floor speech turned the vote on adjournment into a referendum on the tax cuts, which has divided Democrats for months. President Obama wants to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, while allowing taxes to rise on income above that threshold. Many centrist Democrats have joined Republicans in arguing for extending all of the tax cuts.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Wednesday that the House would not vote on the expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts before lawmakers break for the November midterm elections. The House is expected to conclude its work late Wednesday or early Thursday morning.

The House had been seen as unlikely to vote on the tax measure since the Senate decided last week against acting on it before the election, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not inform lawmakers of a final decision until Wednesday morning, a House leadership aide said. Hoyer and Pelosi had split on the timing of the vote, but the aide said the two party leaders were ultimately on the same page.

Wednesday's vote, however, made it clear that dozens of Democrats were uncomfortable with leaving Washington without a vote on extending the tax cuts.

The 39 Democrats who voted against adjournment were a mix of centrist Blue Dogs and vulnerable members from Republican-leaning districts. Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Tom Perriello (Va.) were among the vulnerable Democrats to vote against ending the work period without voting on the tax cuts.

Three House Democrats who are running for Senate, Reps. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Charlie Melancon (La.) and Joe Sestak (Pa.) also voted against adjournment.

Members who voted to adjourn were "putting their election above the needs of your constituents," Boehner said in his speech. "Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress the chance to vote on extending tax rates."

Following the vote, Pelosi's office criticized Boehner's speech, saying it did not contain productive solutions to help aid the economic recovery.

"After listening to House Republican Leader John Boehner’s speech on the House floor today, it is clear that Americans face a choice: keep moving America forward—or return to what Republicans themselves call the 'exact same' agenda of failed ideas that favored corporate special interests, pushed us to the brink of economic disaster and left the middle class and small businesses struggling," a release from her office reads.

The House still has several votes today, including on a measure to keep the federal government operating through Dec. 3, before it adjourns.

So, none of your vaunted liberal congresspeople wanted to vote on taxation before the midterm elections. I wonder why? Hhhhhmmmm?!? Could it be that they couldn't be seen voting AGAINST tax cuts before an election?

Full disclosure—here's the full list of Dems who voted against adjournment:

Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Rep. Tim Bishop (N.Y.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Chris Carney (Pa.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.)
Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Betsy Markey (Colo.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Mike Michaud (Maine)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (Pa.)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Tom Perriello (Va.)
Rep. Gary Peters (Mich.)
Rep. Mark Schauer (Mich.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Dina Titus (Nev.)

As the article said: "The 39 Democrats who voted against adjournment were a mix of centrist Blue Dogs and vulnerable members from Republican-leaning districts." I should know: I'm working in a campaign against one of those members of Congress, and I'm loving it!

Well to fix all those deficit and entitlement funding problems Q all the Repubs have to do when you get in to power is tax the hell out of the 20% of the Americans that earns 85% of the country's wealth.

And after a few years at imposing a 50% or higher tax rate on those individuals these cyclical funding gaps will finally be a thing of the past and the Repubs can finally claim they balanced the federal budget. Hoorah!

From the "Tax Myths" article:

Avoid tax increases. Low tax revenues are not the problem. Even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, revenues are still projected to rise above the historical average. Furthermore, America simply cannot tax its way out of this problem. Financing the projected 10 percent of GDP long-term cost increase for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would require permanently raising taxes by $12,000 per household (adjusted for both inflation and income growth).[21] Such steep tax rate increases would devastate families, businesses, and the economy.

Even the “split the difference” policy of equal tax hikes and spending cuts would eventually push taxes up to near-European levels. Congress is already examining a European-style value-added tax (VAT)—a type of national sales tax— that would allow Congress to keep spending, rather than confront the unsustainable spending trends. Drowning the next generation of Americans in tax hikes is no better than drowning them in debt. Rather than simply raising taxes alongside rising spending, [Obama's] deficit commission should recommend paring back the burgeoning spending programs.

Don't give me shit about taxing the wealthy. You can't tax "wealth". It is an asset that is already earned and in possession of the individuals who own it. What you're trying to do is tax "income", and as we all know, you can have a high income and still have no wealth. Just look at the government. Also, the "high income, low wealth" status is where the vast majority of small businesses are today, and if you tax their incomes, they won't be able to maintain their economic position, and jobs will be lost, and the economy will suffer.

Q-"Fired up"-BE

[Siria]

The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit

The Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. Citing them is like citing the Republican National Committee's website. They literally make up numbers to suit their arguments; what the Heritage Foundation considers "research" any academic institution would consider "academic misconduct".

Heritage is basically staffed by the people whose failure to conform to basic expectations of academic rigor has forced them out of reputable institutions.


You'd be taken more serious citing a B.A. student of a credible college than a person at Heritage with a Ph.D.

[SamV]

Oh and the thing about HSA's is that they are more a tax gimmick than any kind of health care reform.

First off, one most have earned income to participle in an HSA. That is of little use to people like me. I live extremely modestly mostly off my savings and my investments, and an occasional odd-job. So any money I get from my investments is considered unearned, and can't be put in to an HSA. It is also of little use to regular low-wage workers due to the  requirement of buying in to a high-deductible health insurance plan of some sort. The cost of that alone can still put it out of reach for a lot of the uninsured.    

It also doesn't help that any money in an HSA can only be spent on routine care (a visit to a doctor, prescriptions, a trip to the emergency room, etc.) and can't go to pay for long-term care, like the costs for having to do a stint in a nursing home. And any money that is placed in an HSA must be spent in a single year and can't be rolled over to be used in subsequent years. If any amount of the money isn't spent the government simply takes it.

There are other basic problems with HSAs, yet for some individuals an HSA can provide a way to mitigate health costs. But for the vast majority of the uninsured (like I've been for the past 8 years); the under-insured, or those with long-term chronic conditions (me again) an HSA is essentially useless.

And by the way I know this stuff cause I've looked into HSAs as a way to get some coverage for myself, until I'm old enough to be eligible for Medicare. (OOOOO! Another scary socialist government run health care program. )

[3deroticer]

Can we agree that Bush got us into this mess, then why do you think tax cut for the rich will work now, if it didn't work ever?

[SamV]

Wadda mean you can't tax wealth, only income? 

There is nothing in the USC to prevent the government from doing so. It is only a matter of political will for the spineless pols in Washington to grow a pair and do it.

Besides it isn't like they don't already do it. What do you think an estate tax is? That's the federal, state, and sometimes a local government taking the wealth of someone who is dead. And its not like he's gonna need the money - CAUSE HE's DEAD!

And don't give me about how it should go to his heirs. OH, BOO HOO!

Let them go out in the spirit of "rugged individualism" all you Right Wingers tout, and earn their own damn pile, instead of living like vultures off the carrion of their dead. (Besides that's really a job for the government. )  

[Q_BE]

Can we agree that Bush got us into this mess,

No.

then why do you think tax cut for the rich will work now, if it didn't work ever?

The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent

Tax Relief Worked

The lingering weakness in the economy in 2001 and on into 2003 is sometimes used to suggest that tax relief did not work. As noted above, however, the 2001 tax relief was phased in slowly so that in fact there was little pro-growth tax relief in those years.

The passage of JGTRRA in 2003 started a different story. In the first quarter of that year, real GDP grew at a pedestrian 1.2 percent. In the second quarter, during which JGTRRA was signed into law, economic growth jumped to 3.5 percent, the fastest growth since the previous decade. In the third quarter, the rate of growth jumped again to an astounding 7.5 percent.

Employment, too, began to take off. In the fourth quarter of 2003, payroll employment rose by 311,000 jobs, the fastest growth in two and a half years. Strong job growth continued, hitting a peak growth in 2006 of nearly 2.4 million jobs.

Of course, even the soundest long-term, pro-growth tax policies cannot inoculate an economy entirely against the effects of internal and external shocks. The bursting of the housing bubble and the attendant credit crunch have slowed the economy to a crawl. But there can be little doubt the economy was better positioned to absorb these shocks and will return to strong and steady growth sooner because of the tax relief implemented in 2001 and 2003.

Response to the Critics

Critics of the tax relief note correctly that the recovery from the Clinton 2001 recession was more or less average and in some respects below average when measured by the change in GDP, employment, or real wages. They then use this observation to argue that the tax relief had little effect. This conclusion is wrong for at least three reasons.

First, economic recoveries by their very nature reflect the return of the economy from the nadir of the recession to more or less full employment. A deep recession tends to produce stronger recoveries because the economy has further to go to return to normal. A shallow recession tends to produce a shallow recovery because the economy is only operating a tad below normal. The 2001 recession was brief and shallow. The economy contracted in the third quarter of 2000 by one-half of a percentage point on an annualized basis, by a similar amount in the first quarter of 2001, and by 1.4 percent in the third quarter. With such a shallow recession, a shallow recovery was inevitable.

Second, proponents argued the tax relief would accelerate the recovery and put the economy on a stronger long-term growth path. Considering the ensuing shocks to the economy, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, corporate accounting scandals, and soaring energy prices, the economy's performance once the full scope of tax relief took effect in 2003 was remarkable. The issue is whether tax relief helped, not whether it should have produced the strongest recovery on record. The evidence, especially the coincidence between the full implementation of tax relief and the acceleration of the economy in 2003, strongly suggests that tax relief worked.

Third, tax relief is a standard component of the arsenal of tools to counteract periods of economic weakness. The Congress demonstrated this again in 2008 by passing a poorly crafted yet substantial tax-based economic stimulus package. Critics may erroneously discount the importance of the supply-side effects of changes such as marginal rate reductions. If they were objective, however, they should then acknowledge, according to their own economic lights, the stimulative effects to the demand side of the economy. To argue that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were of little or no effect is to denounce entirely the use of fiscal policy as a counter-cyclical tool.
…
…
…
Conclusion

Tax relief enacted in recent years has altered the fiscal landscape profoundly. It helped move tax levels toward historic norms. It helped end the period of slow growth that persisted into 2003. It helped strengthen the foundation for a strong economy in general and built up resistance to the economic shocks, like the housing bubble and credit crunch, of 2007 and 2008. And it was largely consistent with fundamental tax reform principles.

This tax relief should be made permanent, thus preventing a massive tax hike. Then Congress should return to the task of enacting additional pro-growth tax relief.

Your arguments are blown, 3deroticer. Kthxbye.

Q-"Tax cuts work, everytime they're tried"-BE

[Q_BE]

Wadda mean you can't tax wealth, only income?

There is nothing in the USC to prevent the government from doing so. It is only a matter of political will for the spineless pols in Washington to grow a pair and do it.

Besides it isn't like they don't already do it. What do you think an estate tax is? That's the federal, state, and sometimes a local government taking the wealth of someone who is dead. And its not like he's gonna need the money - CAUSE HE's DEAD!

And don't give me about how it should go to his heirs. OH, BOO HOO!

Let them go out in the spirit of "rugged individualism" all you Right Wingers tout, and earn their own damn pile, instead of living like vultures off the carrion of their dead. (Besides that's really a job for the government. )  

You're more liberal than I ever thought you were, SamV, if you propose letting someone take your family's hard-earned money even after they've been taxed by earning it in the first place.

Put yourself in the heirs' position. Better yet, try this on for size:

Seven Reasons Why Congress Should Repeal, Not Fix, the Death Tax

Americans of all walks of life sense the deep injustice of federal death taxes and the fundamental immorality of bedrock public policies that tell people one thing and do another. Policymakers say, on the one hand, that that if you work hard, save your money, and generally do the right things in your daily life, you will succeed in the U.S. economy. On the other hand, however, these same policymakers support the federal death tax, which has the power to nearly confiscate these hard won economic gains once success is attained.

As Members of Congress consider whether to retain federal death taxes, they should ponder the principal reasons why they should join prior Congresses and repeal this tax.

1. Death taxes discourage savings and investment. For those Americans who think that their estates may one day pay federal death taxes, the tax sends a signal that it is better to consume today than invest and make more money in the future. Instead of putting their money in the hands of entrepreneurs or investing more in their own economic endeavors, Americans are encouraged to consume it now rather than pay taxes on it later.
2. Death taxes undermine job creation. Not only do federal death taxes have a corrosive effect on the virtue of savings and prudent investment, but they also directly undermine job creation and wage growth. These latter effects make death tax repeal everyone's concern. Heritage Foundation economists estimate that the federal estate tax alone is responsible for the loss of between 170,000 and 250,000 potential jobs each year.[2] These numbers do not appear in employment statistics because the investments that would have created these jobs are never made.[3]
3. Death taxes suppress productivity and wage growth. The estate tax discourages investment, which holds down wage growth. Businesses are less able to purchase new tools and equipment, which makes workers less productive, which means less wage and salary growth. It is through productivity growth that enhancements to economic and social well-being are made and the virtues of America's form of economic organization are most abundantly seen.
4. Death taxes contradict the central promise of American life: wealth creation. Most Americans oppose death taxes because they seem so un-American. The central promise of American life is that if you work hard, save, and live prudently, you will be assured the enjoyment of your economically virtuous life. There are few other places on the planet where this promise is made (let alone kept), and it--along with companion promises of political and religious freedom--has attracted millions of immigrants to the United States. The death tax contradicts the very promise that has attracted so many.
5. Death taxes hurt those who have tied their savings up in land. Some Americans--such as farmers, ranchers, and homeowners--have improved the land upon which their other assets sit, and the death tax punishes them for this productivity. Others see their property value go up because of factors beyond their control, such as the population growth of cities. In this case, the death tax is fundamentally unfair.
6. Death taxes hurt African-American business owners. Many Americans save in their businesses in order to pass an asset along to their children, and many of these businesses are owned by African-Americans and other minorities. The threat of seeing their life savings absorbed in a single tax bill is reason enough to demand permanent repeal.
7. Death taxes hurt women business owners. Small businesses offer a way around the corporate glass ceiling for many women returning to the labor force after raising families or taking care of other obligations. The economy welcomes their enterprise and creativity, but the death tax makes their return more difficult.

The Nightmare of the American Dream

The federal death tax is, indeed, the nightmare of the American dream. Not only does it undermine the promise of American economic life, but it strikes hard at those aspects of economic activity most important to those just starting their careers or struggling to climb up the economic ladder: It strikes at job creation and income growth.

Only a true socialist would believe that your money isn't your money, even when it actually IS your money.

Q-"You're just mad because your heirs won't be RICH like mine"-BE

[SamV]

Well, neither will Warren Buffet's heirs either, and he has a bigger pile than just about any one.

And only my heirs are, or will be mad, because I'm planning on spending it all on myself before I take a permanent dirt nap.

Besides as a God-fearing cube, didn't you ever hear the one about "Render on to Caesar the things that are Caesar."?

Sam "this has been fun, but we'll have to play another day cause I'm off to look at boobies now" V

[Real]

q-be is back, with that compelling evidence he's been searching for all these months on the internet.  sadly its just more baised hypothetical nonsense that talks about what tax cuts should have done if we didnt live in the real world where repbulicans insist on fighting 2 wars at once.

yeah, repealing tax cuts for the rich won't fix the economy by themselves, they'd just be a logical step for a group of people trying to pretend tehy are deficit hawks.  what those graphs and conservative editorials won't tell you is how people use their tax cuts.  the right has long claimed that taxation is the main inhibitor to growth, which is not true.  the middle class spend their tax cuts and help the economy.  the rich put it in the bank to wait for when things get better.  that's why the obama administration wants to extend tax cuts for the middle class.

you have to be a true laissez faire plutocrat to think that tax rates during a time of war are somehow out of whack historically.  here's something for you to go look up; the tax rates the wealthy paid back in the 50's that conservatives want us dragged back to.  the only other time when mindless fear mongering over "communism" was at a greater height than today.  im sorry it just doesnt hold water.

ive never heard anyone claim that repealing tax cuts for the wealthy is the one step solution, which seems to be the center of q-be's thesis.  It's simply one step in paying down the deficit like americans demand.  

what's the solution from the republican side, aside from letting the rich keep 300 billion that will mostly sit in the bank?  nothing.

only rand paul as per usual is the one politically  witless enough to speak his mind and waht to we get?  leave a bunch more government employees unemployed,  gamble with social security and sell it to the upstanding folks on wall street, send the first worlds most conservative healthcare system back to the extremist one that doubled its own cost in less than a decade.

this is all the biggest lark foisted on dim witted americans since '03, but this time it's "communism" and "socialism" that everyone's so hyped up about even though they dont know the definition instead of "terror" and "wmd"

I dont see anything on that graph that takes into account the collective trillion dollars in income tax the biggest corporations get to skip out on thorugh loopholes.  yeah these people arereally suffering.  and it's not until the socialist and unpatriotic act of paying taxes is quashed that we'll all be truly free.

91 and 92% in the good old days of the 50's when people knew not to trust socialists.  lm fucking ao @ "historical tax rates".

so argue what you want, but let's not mistake who the extremists trying to drag america into an economic setup that has never existed really are.

[3deroticer]

Right now the DOW index is up, yet where are the jobs?

So much for the argument to give wealthy people tax break!