Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".
Good grief.
"Playing", indeed. I'm not good at partisan games. Another waste of my time.
.
Question, did you not just post this?
Again, I say, some is not the opposite of real. It appears you agree, but you still want to argue,This economy is dead in the water right now
I also pointed out, as you know, improvements in unemployment data and intrabank lending as two examples of where improvements have been made, but somehow you "forgot" to notice that. Must have been an oversight, huh?
The improvements were made, and we have since slipped back to "dead in the water" status. Not sure why the two need to be mutually exclusive (okay, just kidding, I know why).
Since Obama has a (D) after his name, it's all his fault, I know. Personally, I think it's more a function of the nature of the disaster, but as I said, I'm not very good at partisan politics.
.
I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.
The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.
Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
Capital gains tax $45
Corporate income tax $132
Individual income tax $794
Social Security taxes $713
Total revenues $1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with. They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.
In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree. You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation. They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.You say punish Obama.
The investors are essentially investors and corporations are essentially corporations, they are still two separate entities. But if you want to claim that investors are essentially the corporation because they provide the capital, then the workers essentially are the corporation because they produce the goods and services the corpotation markets. All the capital in the world won't generate a single profit if the corporation has nothing to sell and no workers to sell it.
Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. They want a Feudal system with tycoons as the lords and masters and everyone else as peons. In reality it takes BOTH capital AND labor working together to make a successful economy. Either BOTH deserve special tax privilages or neither.
Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.
Your numbers are pure horseshit. The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over. He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
Like the two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts that that Bush "forgot" to inlude in the budget.I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.
Your numbers are pure horseshit. The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over. He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
ROFL!
Parasites provide nothing to the government in exchange for the cash they recieve from the government. The companies your story lists all provide the government with stuff the government wants. The fact that some leftwing agitators file complaints against them doesn't make them parasites.
As usual, the lib attempts to rededine a term to mean what he wants it to mean rather than what people who speak English know it to mean.
Those corporations get PAID by the taxpayers for goods and services they provide. Are you saying my tax dollars should pay them for what they DON'T do? We should let them milk the taxpayers? WHY, because you want to suck their cocks Monica?
Your article only mentions "misconduct." It doesn't specificy the nature of the misconduct. For all we know it was some transgedered freak complaining that he/she wasn't allowed to use the women's restrooms.
If the "misconduct" involved money, then the government was probably reimbursed for any funds it paid out without justification. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a "miconduct" report on the record. It would have been dismissed.
[Hey grandma, you parasite ...get your lazy parasite ass out of that chair! Get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career!!!
Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Nice rant.
as a liberal you will lack the IQ to say why you disagree with it. See why we are positive liberalism is based on ignorance?
Actually I had to go out and buy groceries for my family so I just had time for a short, but accurate response.
You assume i am a liberal, but I am a moderate. I do not think that Democrats are communists nor republicans are fascists.
My original point was that conservatives are reading way into Obama's original statement and would rather brand him a communist than address specific issues. Liberals have that same problem.
You illustrated my point nicely when you addressed only one small portion of my post (the next statement placed it into better context), engaged in a ad hominem attack by calling me perfectly stupid, then posted a series of stale quotes you got from some conservative source to enforce your non-point. In other words, you typed nothing.
After my short response, you indicated as a liberal I had a low IQ who could not engage your so-called points. If liberals all have such low IQs and liberalism were based in ignorance, I doubt they would have any success at all getting elected to office over a long term of time. All conservatives would need to do is educate the populace and liberalism would dissappear. This would seem to be an over-generalization. And yet you never really addressed the points in my original post. Thus, by your own standard, one would have to conclude that you possess a low IQ.
Why not address the issues at hand rather than copy and paste old quotes you heard on a talk radio show or a conservative website? Why do partisans prefer to engage in hyperbole?
That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.Your numbers are pure horseshit. The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over. He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.
My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
We shall see
That is a fact.
When was medicare passed ?
And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
That is a fact.
O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
These are not "facts".
The first statement is probably very true.
The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
What are the facts here.
Older people generally require more care than younger people.
Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
Many live on S.S. only.
Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.
In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
LBJ always liked giving away money.
You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
More
O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
What next ?
You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.
My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
We shall see
That is a fact.
When was medicare passed ?
And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
That is a fact.
O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
These are not "facts".
The first statement is probably very true.
The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
What are the facts here.
Older people generally require more care than younger people.
Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
Many live on S.S. only.
Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.
In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
LBJ always liked giving away money.
You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
More
O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
What next ?
You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?
Are you up to it?
Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).
Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:
The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting theyve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurers stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the companys first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.
Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]
New measures gearing up to fight Medicare fraud
The Affordable Care Act aims to stop criminals from defrauding taxpayers billions of dollars every year
Federal health officials announced new security measures to combat Medicare fraud, including tougher screenings for providers and the ability to withhold payments during investigations.
Authorities recovered $2.5 billion in health care fraud judgments last year -- a record high up 50 percent from 2009 -- according to a new report.
Authorities have long said the solution to solving the nation's estimated $60 billion to $90 billion a year Medicare fraud problem lies in vigorously screening providers and stopping payment to suspicious ones, ending the antiquated "pay and chase" system authorities say has kept them one step behind criminals.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted the Affordable Care Act as one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history.
More...
That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?
Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.
Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Thomas Jefferson
