| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2011 06:18:41 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the proper way to use the word is to indicate something that is being taken advantage of that wasn't meant by the original language. I tend to doubt that this is the way politicians are using the word. |
Oil companies drawing billions in subsidies while raking in record profits and farm subsidies being paid out to people who don't actually have farms or earn more than the profit cutoff certainly count as "taking advantage" in my book. Surely you don't think that was the intent of these breaks (as opposed to child tax credits)? Ditto mortgage interest taken on investment properties and laws that allow corporations to deduct expenses incurred overseas while paying no taxes on the profits.
Oh, and for those who think we're in this hole due to "tax and spend" policies, you are correct... but the reckless spending and damaging tax policies probably aren't where you think.
Message edited by author 2011-07-26 18:23:54. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 07:07:34 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the proper way to use the word is to indicate something that is being taken advantage of that wasn't meant by the original language. I tend to doubt that this is the way politicians are using the word. |
Oil companies drawing billions in subsidies while raking in record profits and farm subsidies being paid out to people who don't actually have farms or earn more than the profit cutoff certainly count as "taking advantage" in my book. Surely you don't think that was the intent of these breaks (as opposed to child tax credits)? Ditto mortgage interest taken on investment properties and laws that allow corporations to deduct expenses incurred overseas while paying no taxes on the profits. |
Man, you are like a broken record. :) Actually, I'd probably subtly qualify to say they are probably doing what was intended, but are no longer needed (and thus are obsolete and should be removed). That just seems better descriptively rather than envisioning the industries gleaning billions in tax breaks that nobody intended to give in the first place.
A "loophole" to me is like when you own a dozen goats and let them roam around your property so as to qualify as a farm and gain some tax advantage from that. I don't know the details, but I've witnessed this exact thing happen. The idea behind whatever tax writeoff is not to give people a break for owning a few goats.
Message edited by author 2011-07-26 19:09:55. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 07:15:28 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, I'd probably subtly qualify to say they are probably doing what was intended, but are no longer needed (and thus are obsolete and should be removed). That just seems better descriptively rather than envisioning the industries gleaning billions in tax breaks that nobody intended to give in the first place.
A "loophole" to me is like when you own a dozen goats and let them roam around your property so as to qualify as a farm and gain some tax advantage from that. I don't know the details, but I've witnessed this exact thing happen. The idea behind whatever tax writeoff is not to give people a break for owning a few goats. |
Sounds sort of like DPC and the processing rules, actually. The rules were written with certain broad "goals" in mind (there was a certain type of stuff we wanted to encourage, and another kind we didn't want to have in the challenges) and over time the software coders and the photographers both have rendered many of the rules essentially obsolete :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 08:11:20 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
One of "those guys" said yesterday there are some aprx. 3,300 "loopholes".
Can someone name just 33 of them?
Kelly, you aren't going to miss even 1 check. |
Maybe I won't miss one, maybe I will. But, if I don't miss one, I'm pretty sure it's going to end up being less. They've already stopped COLA for the past 2 years. I consider that a cut in itself. My co-pays & deductables aren't cheap on medicare ($180/$1500/20%), along with the $1400/year premium. My expenses haven't stayed stagnant. Electric is up, gas is up (both kinds), food is way up. What do I give up? You can say it won't happen all you want. The fact is, here in NJ, it's already been underway by the state. I lost my health insurance due to changes in the wording of the state insurance thanks to our Republican governor & had to wait another year to get the medicare. And here's a nice little story... I have an aunt (my mothers sister) who has been disabled since the age of 12. She has an aggressive form of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. When she was 13 she had both her hips replaced and was told she'd never walk again. There were no treatments back then. She was determined to prove them wrong, and she did. Made it through her early twenties, fell in love, married a guy whose family had money. Then everything went nuts. Long story short, she can't be left alone for more than 20 minutes, she can't go to the bathroom by herself, feed herself, dress herself, or even roll over in bed. She's on SSI after her & her husband exhausted every cent of money they had), and her husband is her constant caretaker, so he can't work. 3 months ago, NJ slashed her SSI by $300 (from $1000/month to $700/month). Now she can't pay her rent (go ahead, check 1 bedroom apt. listings in NJ). She's selling her food stamps, keeping every electric thing off in their little apartment, going hungry unless someone comes over with something for her to eat. If NJ had no problem doing it, what's stopping the repug's in the congress from doing it? |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 08:21:17 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
My co-pays & deductables aren't cheap on medicare ($180/$1500/20%), along with the $1400/year premium. |
Not that it helps you at all, but paying $1400 a year for those numbers is cheap, cheap, cheap. Many private premiums that have similar numbers might be 5 times as much yearly.
Doesn't make the grass any greener, but it's likely a lot of other people are in the same boat. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 08:30:15 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
My co-pays & deductables aren't cheap on medicare ($180/$1500/20%), along with the $1400/year premium. |
Not that it helps you at all, but paying $1400 a year for those numbers is cheap, cheap, cheap. Many private premiums that have similar numbers might be 5 times as much yearly.
Doesn't make the grass any greener, but it's likely a lot of other people are in the same boat. |
I understand that. When I was working I paid $800 month for insurance for my family. Co-pays were $30/doctor, $50/E.R. visit, $0 hospital stay. No deductable's. But, I made $40k a year and wasn't sick. Now I get slightly more than $15k a year. The surgery they want me to have is minimum $15k & depending on what's going on could be much, much, higher. So even if it's the cheapest it could be, I'd still owe $4200, or about 1/3 my yearly income for this. I think I'll need to turn it down AMA like I did in November. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 08:33:38 PM · #132 |
| And btw Doc, since you're a doctor let me ask you if it's common practice for a specialist to call your family doctor and rat you out? My family doctor called giving me hell after I turned down the last surgery, I flat out asked him if he was going to pay for it. Heh. Shut him up quick. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 09:02:08 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
And btw Doc, since you're a doctor let me ask you if it's common practice for a specialist to call your family doctor and rat you out? My family doctor called giving me hell after I turned down the last surgery, I flat out asked him if he was going to pay for it. Heh. Shut him up quick. |
yes, I'm sure it is, although I'm sure the specialist is, in his mind doing it for your benefit. We run into this all the time with asthma meds that are too expensive to afford. I understand if someone can't afford them, but I need to report that back to the PCP so they understand why their asthma isn't under control. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 03:56:29 PM · #134 |
| Interesting little fact: the four current GOP leaders– Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Kyl– voted 19 times on four occasions (Kyl voted against the first one) to raise the debt limit during the Bush presidency while increasing spending by 3.5 times all of Obama's policies combined. The ceiling went from $5.95 trillion to $9.815 trillion, and the second vote even took place on the same day the Bush tax cuts (a bigger burden than Iraq and Afghanistan combined) were approved. Not one of those votes was accompanied by a demand to reduce spending. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 04:40:11 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...while increasing spending by 3.5 times all of Obama's policies combined.... |
What does this mean? |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 04:43:57 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...while increasing spending by 3.5 times all of Obama's policies combined.... |
What does this mean? |
It means Bush implemented 3.5 times more spending than Obama, and Republicans didn't have a problem with it. Previous post (figures from Congressional Budget Office). |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 05:15:29 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...while increasing spending by 3.5 times all of Obama's policies combined.... |
What does this mean? |
It means Bush implemented 3.5 times more spending than Obama, and Republicans didn't have a problem with it. Previous post (figures from Congressional Budget Office). |
I can see that graph is off in two seconds.
1) Obama surged Afghanistan. No extra charges there for the war?
2) Obama signed the bill that extended the Bush tax cuts set to expire for at least a year. Not his issue? (EDIT: This might be under "stimulus tax cuts")
3) Obama has only been in office two years. He could have six more to implement policy changes that cost money.
Seems like a throwaway graph to me. Certainly I can agree that it's silly how politicians are all for spending when it's their party doing the spending.
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 17:43:46. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 06:11:37 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can see that graph is off in two seconds. |
Go tell the CBO that you know the budget numbers better than they do. Be sure to ignore the 92,000 troops withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010 and mention that you think Republicans forcing Obama to extend Bush tax cuts that he's been extremely vocal in trying to end magically makes it his policy. Let us know how that works out for you. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 06:22:10 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can see that graph is off in two seconds. |
Go tell the CBO that you know the budget numbers better than they do. Be sure to ignore the 92,000 troops withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010 and mention that you think Republicans forcing Obama to extend Bush tax cuts that he's been extremely vocal in trying to end magically makes it his policy. Let us know how that works out for you. |
Be that as it may, do you think it's reasonable to compare eight years of policies with two years of policies?
it's impossible to tell from the graph any savings reaped from anything. There are no negative numbers presented and there are no war numbers for Obama at all, whether positive or negative. If the drawdown or surge cost or saved money, why isn't it represented? Again, I don't care if it's the CBO, it seems off and even if it is not, it compares apples to oranges. Eight years to two. Should I just do the obvious math and multiply by four for Obama? It's hard to lay TARP at Bush's feet since that came while he was a lame duck and Obama was already part of the process. Maybe they should both be charged for that one. "2008 stimulus" as well.
There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
EDIT: BTW, "source: CBO does not mean the CBO created the graph. It may be the journalist created the graph and searched out CBO numbers for each category (but decided which categories to include, not include on their own).
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 18:49:39. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 06:49:11 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the drawdown or surge cost or saved money, why isn't it represented? |
It is. Right at the top of the chart.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Again, I don't care if it's the CBO, it seems off and even if it is not, it compares apples to oranges. Eight years to two. Should I just do the obvious math and multiply by four for Obama |
Obama's numbers include projected impact out to 2017, far more than two years, and the vast majority of Bush's listed policies (including the most expensive ones) were enacted within less time than Obama has already been in office. If I said Bush was president in 2004, you'd find some reason to argue with it.
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 18:51:22. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 06:51:55 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the drawdown or surge cost or saved money, why isn't it represented? |
It is. Right at the top of the chart. |
LOL. Damn. I missed that.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Again, I don't care if it's the CBO, it seems off and even if it is not, it compares apples to oranges. Eight years to two. Should I just do the obvious math and multiply by four for Obama |
Originally posted by Shannon:
Obama's numbers include projected impact out to 2017, far more than two years, and the vast majority of Bush's listed policies (including the most expensive ones) were enacted within less time than Obama has already been in office. |
True. But what you are missing is how much Obama's Policies from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 cost us projected out as well. So we only have two years of policies projected out, not eight years of policies projected out.
And how come I can't find the article this accompanied? I searched for it, but I can't come up with it. Did they just put this graph all by itself?
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 18:55:41. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 07:17:56 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: BTW, "source: CBO does not mean the CBO created the graph. It may be the journalist created the graph and searched out CBO numbers for each category (but decided which categories to include, not include on their own). |
Now you're going to play the "we don't know the included categories" card? You seemed to know all about how Buffett arrived at his tax comparison. Did it include Nebraska state taxes, payroll taxes...? I don't know, and neither do you, but I'm inclined to think that both Buffett and the NY Times are competent enough to make a valid comparisons... and not for the first time. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 07:23:08 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And how come I can't find the article this accompanied? I searched for it, but I can't come up with it. |
No comment. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 07:42:03 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But what you are missing is how much Obama's Policies from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 cost us projected out as well. So we only have two years of policies projected out, not eight years of policies projected out. |
The comparison shows the result of existing policies, period. If Obama doesn't win a second term, does that mean you can't compare the policy costs of Bush to Obama because of something he MIGHT have done later? That's absurd, but if it makes you happy, then compare the policies of each president's first 2-1/2 years. The conclusion doesn't change. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:05:43 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And how come I can't find the article this accompanied? I searched for it, but I can't come up with it. |
No comment. |
Weird. Must have missed it because the article is listed as July 23rd and the graph is listed as July 24th. What's up with that? I was searching by date.
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 20:05:57. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:10:15 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Must have missed it because the article is listed as July 23rd and the graph is listed as July 24th. What's up with that? I was searching by date. |
Your eyesight is failing again. Read the bottom of the article. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:12:26 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Must have missed it because the article is listed as July 23rd and the graph is listed as July 24th. What's up with that? I was searching by date. |
Your eyesight is failing again. Read the bottom of the article. |
Give me some credit. I didn't have the article, did I? Look at the graph. Top of the page. July 24, 2011. So I searched for articles on July 24th. This one's byline is July 23rd. That's why I missed it I guess. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:17:17 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But what you are missing is how much Obama's Policies from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 cost us projected out as well. So we only have two years of policies projected out, not eight years of policies projected out. |
The comparison shows the result of existing policies, period. If Obama doesn't win a second term, does that mean you can't compare the policy costs of Bush to Obama because of something he MIGHT have done later? That's absurd, but if it makes you happy, then compare the policies of each president's first 2-1/2 years. The conclusion doesn't change. |
It's all absurd. That I can agree on. That you can take something substantial away from that graph is tough other than:
A) Bush spent a lot of money
B) Obama is likewise spending a lot of money.
Hey, there's a news flash!
Originally posted by Shannon:
That's absurd, but if it makes you happy, then compare the policies of each president's first 2-1/2 years. The conclusion doesn't change. |
You so sure about that? We could discard TARP and Stimulus. Down to 4.07T. Assuming discretionary spending is spread across all 8 years we'll take away another $456 billion. Down to $3.61T. Interestingly all the rest, except for Afghanistan can be put at around 2003 which is just over or under 2 1/2 years depending on when it exactly happened. :) We could range all the way from under 1 trillion to 3.6 trillion. Again, statistical fudgery.
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 20:19:16. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:20:27 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And how come I can't find the article this accompanied? I searched for it, but I can't come up with it. |
No comment. |
LOL. I just noticed this is an EDITORIAL!!! Come on. I don't expect a lot of unbiased reporting to be found on that page...
Listen. I'm only complaining about your arguing style (which leaves much to be desired as you are constantly willing to resort to rhetoric rather than unbiased reasoning). We agree otherwise. The Bush tax cuts were terrible. They need to go away. They helped our economy no more than the stimulus package lowered unemployment. Truth is, if a dem was in office, we would have likely gone to war in Afghanistan anyway and possibly even in Iraq due to the poor quality of our intelligence. Medicare prescription package? Come on! That's a dem's wet dream and they were probably just annoyed that Bush actually was the one to put his name on it...
Message edited by author 2011-07-27 20:24:07. |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:45:04 PM · #150 |
| Let's forget about that and just bemoan that the dems seem to have once again rolled over and now the only plans we are talking about involve cuts and no revenue increases. How do the reps always manage to do this? I just want to go away and let it all go to hell. |
|
