[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]
It just goes to show how far down the rat hole society is when you can’t take a position that:

No form of gender relationship issues of any type should be discussed or even suggested to elementary school children.

Again: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN!!

Without being labeled a homophobe.

Sick. Really Sick.[/quote]

So you don’t think mommy and daddy should ever be discussed either?

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount][quote=Rich Toscano]Passing mention of a same-sex couple = “radical gay agenda”[/quote]

Seems innocent and subtle; it’s anything but…

Kids can’t live in a bubble forever, but I want to decide how and when to teach my children about any sexuality (regardless of how subtle the suggestion is….) prior to Jr. High in particular.

Gay Literature is being presented to innocent children in California starting in Kindergarten (ie. Harvey Milk) and 1st grade. I call that Radical.

I call that Social Engineering.

Sadly, this agenda will spread Nationwide.

Private/Charter Schools: Now More than Ever…[/quote]

I’ve yet to figure out what is “radical” in all this. Twenty years ago, maybe. Today, not even a little bit. How is it the least bit harmful? It’s the real world today. It’s not violent. It’s not evil. Why should it be hidden?

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I couldn’t listen to it all. There were just too many falsities stated as fact.[/quote]
such as?[/quote]

It was a few days ago, the worst I remember is that the only way to make more money is to increase productivity and the only way to increase productivity is to borrow money, or something similar to that.

[SK in CV]

I couldn’t listen to it all. There were just too many falsities stated as fact.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
Don’t you think that is kinda ironic, considering the entire purpose is to tax the rich more where as wealth accumulation by rich(er) people have been more rampant via capital gains versus “wage” income?[/quote]

I guess I just don’t get the bolded part. For the last 3 decades, Republicans have been fighting for just the opposite with their bogus claim that lower taxes on the rich is better because they’re “job creators”. It has become “conventional wisdom” among conservatives and Democrats have been, for the most part, not much better. Either accepting it or fighting weakly against it. It would be ironic if there was any significant movement to tax the rich. There just hasn’t been.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
Why not focus of the problem of cost by encouraging more supply of medical services via competition. Why not force users of medical services to shop around for better prices and/or decide that some test/treatment isn’t worth it. That’s the way you address the cost problem.[/quote]

The first part is being done. There were 5 new medical schools in the US between 1980 and 2000. There have been around 30 since then. (more than half DO schools.) Another 15 to 20 could be in operation within 5 years (mostly MD schools.)

I’m not sure what mechanisms can be put in place to “force” shopping around. The shift towards higher deductible plans along with both private and public insurance paying negotiated rates moves us in that direction.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]No I was referring to the convoluted way the 20% cap gain rate is determined[/quote]

That’s not a tax on the rich. It applies to everyone.[/quote]

20% tax rate applies only to MAGI folks above $400k/450k. The rest still are at 15% level.

How is this not a tax on the wealthier..

Fine by me. Again, my point was the irony in the rules for how the 20% cap gain tax rate kicks in…[/quote]

I’m not sure how that’s ironic. Higher income, higher tax.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]No I was referring to the convoluted way the 20% cap gain rate is determined[/quote]

That’s not a tax on the rich. It applies to everyone. Capital gains tax preferences should be repealed in their entirety. Given the current economic conditions, there’s no good reason to tax profit from capital at a lower rate than income from working.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]But I just thought it was amusing that the tax on the “rich” was defined as such to mean income earned as wages would be taxed more than capital gains, considering that really rich people I think derive most of their wealth from capital gains….

Lol….[/quote]

If you’re referring to the medicare surtax which was part of the ACA, wages are not taxed more than capital gains. The rate is .9% on wages and 3.8% on net investment income.

[SK in CV]

Absent other context, this is not accurate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]
Bullshit! The constant barrage of talking points passed from liberal to liberal to liberal was that no one would lose their coverage or be forced to change their policy. The only people saying it were those opposed to the law, and we were accused of fear mongering.[/quote]

No it wasn’t.

From an article almost 3 years ago:

But throughout the explosive health care debate in 2009, Obama made clear time and again that when he said, “nobody is talking about taking that away from you,” the President was referring to the government. His was an obvious – and understandable – effort to debunk a Republican talking point dating back to the demise of the Clinton health care debacle.

For example, at a June 23, 2009 press conference, President Obama left no doubt about the meaning of his message:

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, … or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]If they did then I never heard it. What I heard, over and over and over again, was if you like your policy you will be able to keep it. I heard this again, and again, and again.

Sorry, not a single time did I ever, ever hear, that if you like your policy but if it considered substandard by the standards set out in this legislation, and it changes at all, it will need to be cancelled because it cannot be offered under the new legislation.

Sorry that was never ever said.[/quote]

Not the substandard policies part. But that people would lose their coverage? Absolutely. He said it on national television. And when he said that nobody would lose their coverage, he made it clear he was saying that nothing in the law would require people to change policies. And nothing does. Because the government isn’t issuing the policies, private insurers are. This same discussion was had immediately after the law was passed. There’s no surprises now. This is exactly what was expected.

[SK in CV]

[quote=joec]Long term, like other’s have said, I think companies will start removing health care from their benefits since the Obama plans are probably actually BETTER than a lot of corporate coverage as well.

I think this is a good thing as insurance costs have been inflated since someone else has been paying the bill forever, and companies can focus on their business rather than health care…[/quote]

Employers won’t start that now. That bus left more than a decade ago. Over the decade preceding the law being signed, 15 million people lost employer sponsored coverage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor] The administration knew it 3 years ago and to blame insurance companies for cancelling the policies and label policies that are less comprehensive “substandard” is pretty lame.

[/quote]

Not only did the administration know it 3 years ago. They said so. Repeatedly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]No, I actually meant the “Fed” — correct me if I’m wrong, but as the bank of last resort, they can buy any bonds including STATE-issued infrastructure bonds.

[/quote]

Are you aware of any state or municipal infrastructure bonds that have gone unfunded? Any instances of bonds being approved for issuance, and issuers cancelled because they couldn’t sell the bonds (effectively, couldn’t borrow the money), or because the interest rate was too high? If not, how would the fed buying bonds on the secondary market change anything?

[Author]

Posts