Obama, funding Healthcare with Tax Cuts

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Obama, funding Healthcare with Tax Cuts

Post by Straha »

Link to the source. wrote:Even as Barack Obama proposes fiscally responsible tax reform to strengthen our economy and restore the balance that has been lost in recent years, we hear the familiar protests and distortions from the guardians of the broken status quo.

Many of these very same critics made many of these same overheated predictions in previous elections. They said President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan would wreck the economy. Eight years and 23 million new jobs later, the economy proved them wrong. Now they are making the same claims about Sen. Obama's tax plan, which has even lower taxes than prevailed in the 1990s -- including lower taxes on middle-class families, lower taxes for capital gains, and lower taxes for dividends.

Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan.

Both candidates for president have proposed tax plans. But they are starkly different in their approaches and their economic impact. Sen. Obama is focused on cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses, and investing in key areas like health, innovation and education. He would do this while cutting unnecessary spending, paying for his proposals and bringing down the budget deficit.

In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today.

Sen. Obama believes a focus on the middle class is appropriate in the wake of the first economic expansion on record where the typical family's income fell by almost $1,000. The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. In addition, Sen. Obama is proposing tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant.

Sen. Obama also recognizes that small businesses are the engine of job growth in the economy. That is why he is proposing additional tax cuts, including a tax credit for small businesses that provide health care, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. The vast majority of small businesses would face lower taxes under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan. In addition, Sen. Obama supports reforming corporate taxes in a manner that would help create jobs in America and simplify the tax code by eliminating distortions and special preferences.

Sen. Obama believes that responsible candidates must put forward specific ideas of how they would pay for their proposals. That is why he would repeal a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s.

- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.

- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.

- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.

- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.

Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.


Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes.

In contrast, Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- would provide no benefit whatsoever to 101 million families who do not have children or other dependents, or who have a low income.

But Sen. McCain's plan does include one new proposal that would result in higher taxes on the middle class. As even Sen. McCain's advisers have acknowledged, his health-care plan would impose a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years on workers. Sen. McCain's plan will count the health care you get from your employer as if it were taxable cash income. Even after accounting for Sen. McCain's proposed health-care tax credits, this plan would eventually leave tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes. In addition, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, this kind of plan would push people into higher tax brackets and increase the taxes people pay as their compensation rises, raising marginal tax rates by even more than if we let the entire Bush tax-cut plan expire tomorrow.

The McCain plan represents Bush economics on steroids. It has $3.4 trillion more in tax cuts than President Bush is proposing, largely directed at corporations and the most affluent. Sen. McCain would implement these cuts without proposing any meaningful steps to simplify taxes or eliminate distortions and loopholes. In addition, Sen. McCain has floated over $1 trillion in new spending increases but barely any specific spending cuts.

As previously mentioned, the Obama plan is a net tax cut -- his middle-class tax cuts are larger than the rollbacks he has proposed for families making over $250,000. Sen. Obama would pay for this tax cut by cutting spending -- including responsibly ending the war in Iraq, reducing excessive payments to private plans in Medicare, limiting payments for high-income farmers, reducing subsidies for banks that make student loans, reforming earmarks, ending no-bid contracts, and eliminating other wasteful and unnecessary programs.

While Sen. Obama would shrink the deficit from its current record levels, he recognizes that it is even more important to confront our long-term fiscal challenges, including the growth of health costs in the public and private sector. He also believes it is critical to work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security while protecting middle-class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. He has done what few presidential candidates have been willing to do by making a politically risky proposal to strengthen solvency by asking those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.

Sen. Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4% rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2% to 4% more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now [I.E. When he's out of office.] and is similar to the rate increases floated by Sen. McCain's close adviser Lindsey Graham, and that Sen. McCain has previously said he "could" support.

In contrast, Sen. McCain has put forward the most fiscally reckless presidential platform in modern memory. The likely results of his Bush-plus policies are clear. As Berkeley economist Brad Delong has estimated, the McCain plan, as compared to the Obama plan, would lower annual incomes by $300 billion or more in real terms by 2017, costing the typical worker $1,800 or more due to the effect of large deficits on national savings and thus capital formation. Sen. McCain's neglect of critical public investments would further impede economic growth for decades to come.

Do not take the critics' word for it. Go look at the plans for yourself at www.barackobama.com/taxes. Get the facts and you will see the real priorities at stake in this election. America cannot afford another eight years like these.
So, to make this clear, Barack Obama has promised to "make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress." That will be affordable even for the poor and dispossessed. And he will be funding it by making tax cuts. Tax cuts so wide and sweeping that his (minimal) tax increases on the rich wont cover it. This is even after the Congressional Budget Office has said that we might need to almost double income tax in the long run to maintain our current level of spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to say nothing of increasing benefits. Hell, even John McCain acknowledged there that he'd have to increase taxes by over three and a half trillion dollars to cover the cost of his (poor) healthcare plan. But wait a second! Obama has a plan! According to the above he'll reduce spending by "ending the war in Iraq" with what looks to be the same plan as McCain as every day passes, somehow changing earmark spending and reducing farm subsidies (both things the Democratic party has held sacrosanct since the time of FDR), and cutting subsidies to Student Loans.

Dear fucking bloody gods. Just when McCain had done everything to make me never want to vote for him and all he could to drive me into maybe voting for Obama, the Obamessiah releases this turd. :x
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Yep, it's clearly much worse to do this than to jawbone the tax income entirely and levy a 3.6 trillion tax increase on the working classes.. As put in the same article.

Really, what should be understood is that until you cut down on the ballooning military spending and reform the healthcare system, yes, there will be those awful shortfalls. Would you prefer no healthcare?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:Yep, it's clearly much worse to do this than to jawbone the tax income entirely and levy a 3.6 trillion tax increase on the working classes.. As put in the same article.
Good heavens! YOU MEAN WE MIGHT HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTHCARE WITH A TAX INCREASE! SOUND THE ALARMS THE APOCALYPSE HAS COME!

Much as I have grown to dislike McCain's healthcare plan, he at least acknowledge that if you're spending more money you have to raise taxes elsewhere. The last person who thought otherwise was George W. Bush over his war in Iraq, and between you and me, I'd much rather have someone with a different view of public finances than the shrub in office for the next four years.
Really, what should be understood is that until you cut down on the ballooning military spending and reform the healthcare system, yes, there will be those awful shortfalls. Would you prefer no healthcare?
Black white fallacy. It's not either McCain's or Obama's plan. I would much prefer a healthcare plan that is comprehensive and, at the same time, doesn't spend money we don't have. We're already set to drive our debt up to 200% of our GDP in the next thirty years based on our existing government healthcare and retirement plans as it is (see link above), I'd rather not send our nations bonds into junk rating any quicker.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Already posted, you just quoted different parts of the same article. Merge threads?
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

I think it's blindingly naive to think the problems today can be fixed without more deficit spending. I mean, healthcare is a drop in the ocean compared to the infrastructure, which is getting desperate.

It's not truly black and white, because the healthcare reform must go through the House and Senate(Unless OBAMA IS A SECRET MIND CONTROLLING ALIEN!!!!!), but frankly, the idea that we reform it to be affordable is leagues away better than the other offered so far. And don't think Bob Barr or other third parties is going to offer shit, so the best path is to get on your congresscritter's case about it.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

I'll add as well that the idea that we can tolerate a shortfall in the short term is absurd as well because the government can't keep raising the money on deficit spending. Because, according to S & P (the main Bond ratings agency) U.S. Treasury bonds will already be decreasing in under ten years if there is no change in monetary spending, and will be well within junk bond ratings in twenty years. And that's if we don't increase the deficit by even more.

Image (Click the image for the full report.)

Also, I find the comparison to Clinton's deficit reduction plan in the opening paragraph of the WSJ piece to be absolutely appalling because this is, pretty much, the exact opposite.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:I think it's blindingly naive to think the problems today can be fixed without more deficit spending. I mean, healthcare is a drop in the ocean compared to the infrastructure, which is getting desperate.
We can't fix all the problems of the nation. But we can address a lot of them by aiming for less, cutting unnecessary and actually increasing taxes to help pay for it. Also, I posted it before I read your reply, but we really can't keep on deficit spending like this, not for moralistic reasons but because we just wont be able to keep doing it.
It's not truly black and white, because the healthcare reform must go through the House and Senate(Unless OBAMA IS A SECRET MIND CONTROLLING ALIEN!!!!!), but frankly, the idea that we reform it to be affordable is leagues away better than the other offered so far. And don't think Bob Barr or other third parties is going to offer shit, so the best path is to get on your congresscritter's case about it.
I have annoyed my congressdolt's interns with my calls. But, frankly, it wont do much. And my senators (Clinton and Chuck E. Cheese Schumer) wont help to cut spending at all. I will add, that if Obama is just floating this plan because he knows he wont be held to account because Congress will scrub it makes this issue even worse in a different way. But I really hope that he's a better candidate than that so...
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Are you seriously suggesting that the McCain plan is superior to this? If not, then this is, at worst, the lesser of two evils. If you actually think the McCain plan is superior, then I have to wonder where you left your sanity.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Post by Thanas »

^Even if it were (which it isn't), the morality of giving the rich a 3.4 trillion tax and then taxing the workers 3.6 trillion in order to pay for it while reducing their health insurance coverage is simply abhorrent.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

Darth Wong wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the McCain plan is superior to this?
As I've said three times in this thread I severely dislike McCain's plan, and most certainly will not be voting for him in part because of his healthcare plan. But I'll give him credit that he, at least, recognizes that you have to pay for the cost of the plan. And in that one, sole respect his plan is far superior to Obama's.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

Darth Wong wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the McCain plan is superior to this? If not, then this is, at worst, the lesser of two evils. If you actually think the McCain plan is superior, then I have to wonder where you left your sanity.
At the risk of 'me too' ing, I agree.
Shit, stripped to its bare essentials, the McCain 'plan' is an open declaration of war upon the lower and middle classes.

Shorter John McCain: Sick? Old? Lower income? Fuck you and die in the street.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

John McPain seems more accurate...
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

Edi wrote:John McPain seems more accurate...
God help me, because one of us has changed over the years, and I suspect it isn't you. :lol:
I remain a small 'c' conservative in a lot of respects, but the last seven years have opened my eyes to just how much I was being manipulated.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Straha wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the McCain plan is superior to this?
As I've said three times in this thread I severely dislike McCain's plan, and most certainly will not be voting for him in part because of his healthcare plan. But I'll give him credit that he, at least, recognizes that you have to pay for the cost of the plan. And in that one, sole respect his plan is far superior to Obama's.
You are joking, right?

You have to be fucking joking.

Reuters
OVERALL EFFECT OF TAX, HEALTH CARE PLANS

McCain: According to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Washington-based think tanks The Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, McCain's tax and health care plans would reduce federal tax revenues by $4.2 trillion over the 2009-18 period compared with current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 and the AMT remains in full force. Compared to a "baseline" scenario that assumes extension of the Bush tax cuts and extension of an indexed AMT "patch," McCain's plan would reduce revenues by $600 billion for the 10-year period. Including interest, the McCain plan would increase the national debt by $5 trillion by 2018.

Obama: Plans would cut tax revenues by $2.8 trillion over the 2009-18 period compared with current law, according to the Tax Policy Center. Compared to the baseline scenario, Obama's plan would increase revenues by $800 billion. Including interest costs, his plan would increase the national debt by $3.4 trillion by 2018.
McCain, understand you need to pay for shit? The numbers disagree.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:
Straha wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the McCain plan is superior to this?
As I've said three times in this thread I severely dislike McCain's plan, and most certainly will not be voting for him in part because of his healthcare plan. But I'll give him credit that he, at least, recognizes that you have to pay for the cost of the plan. And in that one, sole respect his plan is far superior to Obama's.
You are joking, right?
I was dealing with only his healthcare plan, not with the rest of his financial policy. If a President is going to set up a long term program and hope to secure funding for it he needs to set up a separate plan to fund it, like FDR did with Social Security. And in that regard (and that regard alone) I'll give credit to McCain's healthcare plan.

As for the rest of McCain's financial policy. There are no words in the English language that can aptly describe how much of a poorly thought out mish-mash it is, so I wont even try to state my feelings on it.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

What laughable nonsense! McCain's plan doesn't 'pay' for anything. It simply strips away the tax exemption for healthcare and replace it with 2,500 rebate for individual or 5,000 for a family. Where's the 'plan' besides simply taxing people more? Or are you seriously proposing the idiotic 'free market investment pool' health accounts he proposes for the high risk would actually not run an outrageous deficit?

Only one man in this race talks about balancing the budget. It's the guy who'll strip out tax revenues by 4.2T and raise the debt by 5T. McCain.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:What laughable nonsense! McCain's plan doesn't 'pay' for anything. It simply strips away the tax exemption for healthcare and replace it with 2,500 rebate for individual or 5,000 for a family. Where's the 'plan' besides simply taxing people more? Or are you seriously proposing the idiotic 'free market investment pool' health accounts he proposes for the high risk would actually not run an outrageous deficit?
Me in this Thread wrote:in that regard (and that regard alone) I'll give credit to McCain's healthcare plan
Me in this Thread wrote:As I've said three times in this thread I severely dislike McCain's plan, and most certainly will not be voting for him in part because of his healthcare plan.
And there's more but I'm not going to pull it out. Regardless, like I said, I don't support McCain's plan. I do not advocate implementing it, and it's one of the things that drove me permanently away from McCain. The only area in which I think he's done anything good in regards to his plan is that he has a plan to raise the money before he spends it horribly, as opposed to Obama who is only spending it.

Beyond that one, tiny and (frankly) largely inconsequential part of McCain's healthcare platform there can be no defense for what he wants to do and I, most certainly, wont offer one. What annoys me here is that Obama's plan is incredibly boneheaded and simply wont work unless he changes his tax plan. And I'm sure as hell not going to vote for him until he changes his plan so it's not helping to drive the U.S. bankrupt even faster than it's already going.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Again, where in McCain's plan is funding that won't be gutted by his tax cuts to the wealthy, or even a plan beyond 'Fuck you, sick people!'? You keep saying shit like..
The only area in which I think he's done anything good in regards to his plan is that he has a plan to raise the money before he spends it horribly, as opposed to Obama who is only spending it.
But if you don't confine it to healthcare, that's laughable nonsense, and it's outright facetious to apply to healthcare because he's not spending a dime to fix it!
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

Straha, in the middle of your hysterics, has it occurred to you that the Canadian model is CHEAPER per capita than our model? Switching would SAVE net revenue.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Primus has it right. Obama's plan will cause a dent in the tax revenue. Of course, adding his tax cuts to his healthcare and not adding McCain's tax cuts to his healthcare is pretty disingenuous. But we skip ahead.

Obama at least pursues a plan that will help the crisis. McCain's will excaberate, by raising the effective costs of healthcare and increasing the number of uninsured.

How one can take McCain's side on this is laughable.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Straha, in the middle of your hysterics, has it occurred to you that the Canadian model is CHEAPER per capita than our model? Switching would SAVE net revenue.
Which is immaterial. We're not changing to a Canadian model, reading Obama's site makes it clear that the taps will open for the health-care industry to help pay for the poor. And frankly, I have nothing against that (nor, right now, instituting a Canadian style system), but only if it's paid for by tax increases. We're already running at a, depending on who you talk to, 600-800 Billion dollar deficit and cutting taxes isn't going to help that. This spending is what's driving the nation deep into debt according to the CBO (and a former Bill Clinton staffer.) I'd be fine with the nation going into debt to pay for decent universal healthcare, except because we're so deep in debt we wont be able to raise any money unless we start paying off the deficit in the next eight years, because if we don't we wont be able to deficit spend anymore. What's more, comparing us to the current Canadian cost of healthcare is disingenuous because we're going to have to cover the baby boom retiring and all the health problems that go hand in hand with old age very soon. That means that the cost of healthcare, like the cost of Social Security, sky rockets as the number of tax payers declines.

That's the same level of fiscal irresponsibility that I've come to expect from the Bush administration, and frankly (to borrow a popular catchphrase) I want change here before we commit national suicide.
Nitram wrote:But if you don't confine it to healthcare, that's laughable nonsense, and it's outright facetious to apply to healthcare because he's not spending a dime to fix it!
I can see where you're coming from, and you're right. I do hold John McCain to task for not trying to actually induce more fiscal responsibility to his potential administration, and I should have made it clear. My problem here is with the respective healthcare programs of the candidates alone (though, the original article dealt with more than just healthcare.

However, to be fair to McCain, his GAP, HSAs, and direct incentives to companies and states will spend money on healthcare. But they are utterly insufficient in both amount and degree and there can be no proper defense of his plan. My point that he at least raises new money to spend on healthcare is no more, as you put it, "taking McCain's side," than my admiration for some, select, parts of the Iranian constitution means that I take the side of the radical clerics in Qom in advocating the spread of Sharia law to the west.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Straha, the problem is that you are trying to pretend that excaberating a disaster has some nice points because he's not going to bankrupt the national coffers with it, just millions of families and businesses. That's not even close to sensible.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

Straha, why do you insist on the ridiculous strawman that the benefits will have to remain the same, or a socialized system wouldn't drive down overall average costs? You know as it gets worse they'll just chip away benefits and age etc.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Straha wrote:Good heavens! YOU MEAN WE MIGHT HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTHCARE WITH A TAX INCREASE! SOUND THE ALARMS THE APOCALYPSE HAS COME!
First, government provided health care is not necessarily more expensive than the other kind.

Second, he is hoping to cut down on expenditures by ending certain expensive subsidy programs for farmers and banks, and pulling out of Iraq.

Third, a recession is the worst time to hike taxes on the middle class, which is why Obama isn't doing it. McCain is, but that hardly makes him more responsible, as you so idiotically believe: it makes him a hatchet man, who doesn't recognize that the source of America's economic strength is its middle class, not its Paris Hilton class.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

Darth Wong wrote:
Straha wrote:Good heavens! YOU MEAN WE MIGHT HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTHCARE WITH A TAX INCREASE! SOUND THE ALARMS THE APOCALYPSE HAS COME!
First, government provided health care is not necessarily more expensive than the other kind.
Oh, I agree. The problem is that for the other kind people pay out of pocket. For government provided health care people pay taxes. And unless you're going to charge people out of pocket for a government health care plan, an utterly ridiculous plan if you ask me and not one of Obama's mindset, Obama needs to raise taxes to cover the increase. I'm all for, gods know how much I am for, providing at least government support to health care. But Obama's plan is hampered by the specific fact that, no matter how much it costs, there's no money to pay for it. And that there will be no money to pay for it. if Obama would only stand forward and say "Hey, Healthcare is important to Americans, and I understand and respect that. But what Americans have to understand is that just because the government provides it doesn't make it free. So in order to give you what you really want, that is Healthcare, we have to raise taxes to afford it." I'd be all for his plan. Except he plans to cut taxes while increasing spending. A recipe for disaster if there ever was one (and Bush is all we need to see to make sure it is one), and that I cannot stomach.
Second, he is hoping to cut down on expenditures by ending certain expensive subsidy programs for farmers and banks, and pulling out of Iraq.
No democrat since FDR has ever, ever, touched subsidies for farmers. And no democrat ever will. So much of their money comes from Farmers and so much of their support is tied up with farmers that any plan to cut subsidies to farmers is a non-starter, and even if it gets proposed it will fail in congress. As for his proposal to cut subsidies towards banks, read it again. His proposal is to cut subsidies to banks for providing Student Loans. In other words to make healthcare less expensive he plans to make education more expensive. That's not a trade off I'm willing to make, nor one that I think should ever be made. Finally, Obama's Iraq plan has slipped more and more from "Out by 2010" to its current plan which calls for setting a fluid deadline on the ideal time when all combat troops will be out, while leaving all support, logistical troops, as well as contractors, in Iraq. This is not a significant cost cutting measure at all. Furthermore it's not likely to pull out a majority of the troops in the next four years, when the healthcare plan will be initiated, leaving us high and dry on the high seas of rolling debt. Not a place I'd like America to be.
Third, a recession is the worst time to hike taxes on the middle class, which is why Obama isn't doing it. McCain is, but that hardly makes him more responsible, as you so idiotically believe: it makes him a hatchet man, who doesn't recognize that the source of America's economic strength is its middle class, not its Paris Hilton class.
America has, according to the latest economic data, already rebounded from the recession by a great deal. And I agree, now is not the best time to hike taxes. The problem is there is no other workable time. Unless we fix our deficit spending now we will go permanently bankrupt by 2016, at the latest. If we are going to increase spending we must increase taxes to go with it, because increasing the number of bonds we are issuing to support our debt will only bankrupt us quicker. So, unless we move in the next four years, it will be like we haven't moved at all.
Illuminatus Primus wrote: Straha, why do you insist on the ridiculous strawman that the benefits will have to remain the same, or a socialized system wouldn't drive down overall average costs? You know as it gets worse they'll just chip away benefits and age etc.
So, what you're saying is that in order to forestall a national collapse due to debt that's currently due ~2016 Obama and congress will "chip away benefits" for the healthcare plan being proposed now and introduce, at the earliest, in 2009? Let me ask you then, is possibly seven years of semi-decent (but nowhere near comprehensive enough) healthcare worth national bankruptcy and the collapse of federal spending? I say no. If you say otherwise I'd be happy to understand why, though.
Nit wrote: Straha, the problem is that you are trying to pretend that excaberating a disaster has some nice points because he's not going to bankrupt the national coffers with it, just millions of families and businesses. That's not even close to sensible.
I'll be blunt. Neither candidate's plan is acceptable to me. If I were strapped down and forced to pick I'd pick Obama. But it's like picking Anthrax over Ebola as a way to go. Certainly better and less destructive, but either way you're dead at the end. And I'd much rather see one of these two candidates (and it's more likely to be Obama than "Last thing someone said to me" McCain) realize what tripe their selling right now, sit down, and then change their plan to something reasonable. Any idea that I'm supporting McCain is hogwash, and I've tried to make it clear as such. But let me say again, for the record, John McCain is moronic senile old man whose faults outweigh all the benefits he once had in everyway shape and form. His current policies are the worst on offer in the current election, except for the sole fact that he wants to pay for his mediocre and utterly unsufficient healthcare plan, whereas Barak Obama does not. By contrast, however, Mr. Obama outperforms John "I was a POW!" McCain in every other measurable field. However, Obama's faults still outweigh his benefits and as much as I deeply want to vote for the man who, I think, represents everything that America should idealize... I just can't. And so, I wont. And I will point out (as above) that his healthcare plan, great as it is compared to the rest of the chaf, is still full of shit.



P.S. Sorry if I ramble on a bit, I'm actually inebriated to a fair degree at the time of posting this. But, I stand by it regardless.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
Post Reply