POLL: Obama - your take now?

[Hundo®]

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

By Mr. Michael D. LaFaive | Nov. 1, 1997
Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?
The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.
In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.
Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.
The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.
In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.





This has been proven over and over again in our economy.

i applaud you, and would rep if i could. out for 24.

[Total_Blender]

. Offering gov health care at a discounted price from regular health care would be intelligent.

What exactly do you think the Dems are trying to do? Because it seems to me like the so-called "public option" is just that... a discounted insurance plan for those who can't afford private insurance. Since you seem to be in favor of that, why knock it?

As far as healthcare being "forced down your throat", I assume you mean single payer, but even in that event private insurance would still be around to cover gaps not covered by a government plan. Pretty much everywhere that has single payer also has private supplemental plans.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healt...nce-getaquote/

[§treet_§peed]

Great post! I dont mean it, on your standing right now...I am right there with you. I went from 50 hours a week at $13 down to 32 hours a week, then to no job. Trying to even find a part time job right now is hard. Fuck I would love 25-30 hours a week at $9-10 an hour.

Thanks man, like you said tho. I would not mind something like that either. Hell going from $13.75/hr to $8/hr was hard enough but still supplied me with some money to get things took care of. The first job I was talking about paid me more money per week through unemployment than the other job I picked up. But unemployment doesn't last forever and sometime you can't be to proud to take what you can get to keep some money coming in. Like tomorrow I have an interview at the Wrigley gum plant up here. I was told I might only be able to get 9.75 or 10.00 per hour starting off. I told them that would be fine with me.

[§treet_§peed]

I still say the movie Fight Club had some good ideas..

[Hundo®]

What exactly do you think the Dems are trying to do? Because it seems to me like the so-called "public option" is just that... a discounted insurance plan for those who can't afford private insurance. Since you seem to be in favor of that, why knock it?

As far as healthcare being "forced down your throat", I assume you mean single payer, but even in that event private insurance would still be around to cover gaps not covered by a government plan. Pretty much everywhere that has single payer also has private supplemental plans.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healt...nce-getaquote/

I personally think there is no NEED to change our health care. but if it were going to change, i think that's the only viable option. In it's inception it was to FORCE it upon everyone, with no choice, you just pay it as part of your taxes. Everyone MUST HAVE health care.

Barack Obama doesn’t have a health care plan. I mean, maybe he has some glorious pet plan he’s been perfecting in his basement that will lower costs, cover everybody, and provide competitive advantages to the Chicago White Sox. But we’re not getting that plan.

We’re getting whatever makes it through Congress’s digestive track. Congress is like a beast that feeds on ideas, keeps whichever parts will make it fatter, and turns the rest into poop.

At the moment, Congress has not finished this aromatic process. There are several variations on plans kicking around Washington, and Democrats have spent most of the summer bickering about them. Yet we constantly hear reporters, talking heads, Republicans and crazy street preachers refer to “the Obama health care plan.”

[Bajjani]

Someone
cliff notes from page 3 to now

[§treet_§peed]

O and btw about the statement saying:

1. With Obama we hit the wall at 85 mph.
2. With McCain we hit the wall at 55 mph.



We when I was 17, I was running about 70-75 ish on a 35 Mph road in the rain. Hydroplaned in a curve and slammed into a bank head on flipped and hit a power pole in the air. Anyway, the point being. I wish I would of hit the bank, which was my wall, a little slower.

[Bajjani]

I just want someone to explain to me using facts how the 1.2 trillion healthcare bill will help us. Tony I won't lie, I'm not reading that whole fucking thread to find your one answer.

[Hundo®]

I wish I would of hit the bank, which was my wall, a little slower.

i think that's a pretty obvious fucking statement there matt.

[tony]

I'm amazed that the article you quoted even used Reagan to validate their point, its well known how much the National Debt grew under Reagan yet the article states that revenues increased.

No doubt there is a sweet spot where taxation is too excessive and a point where it is too lax. The tax cuts under Bush, the rising deficit and expansion of government tells me that the tax rate at that time was too lax. Can't justify it when it contributed to the problem we are currently in.

[§treet_§peed]

i think that's a pretty obvious fucking statement there matt.

Well you know how some people on here are. Some you can tell them the answer in a question and they still scratch their heads.

[tony]

I just want someone to explain to me using facts how the 1.2 trillion healthcare bill will help us. Tony I won't lie, I'm not reading that whole fucking thread to find your one answer.

And herein lies part of the problem we have today in society and thank you for your honesty. Rather than take the time and understand people want the answer to be given to them. You have some strong opinions to not have taken the time to see the other side of the argument.

[Hundo®]

Well you know how some people on here are. Some you can tell them the answer in a question and they still scratch their heads.

yea but the way echonova put it, you'd have to be in the womb to not get it.

[zspeed24]

I'm amazed that the article you quoted even used Reagan to validate their point, its well known how much the National Debt grew under Reagan yet the article states that revenues increased.

No doubt there is a sweet spot where taxation is too excessive and a point where it is too lax. The tax cuts under Bush, the rising deficit and expansion of government tells me that the tax rate at that time was too lax. Can't justify it when it contributed to the problem we are currently in.

Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

[Hundo®]

And herein lies part of the problem we have today in society and thank you for your honesty. Rather than take the time and understand people want the answer to be given to them. You have some strong opinions to not have taken the time to see the other side of the argument.

that's a stupid thing to say tony. That's like obama showing up to a debate and then when asked for a rebuttal he says "refer to my dissertation, in which i have answered all of these questions."

[MachNU]

Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

IE basically saying $.01 out of $100

[tony]

Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

lol I know I've posted on this before, so I'll brb with what i posted.

[Total_Blender]

Are you out of your fucking mind? *bold are my remarks to those.

The only one of these I will even dignify with a comment is:

You are out there on this one. Yay good lets give these terrorist reign in the US Judical System. Lets put them in a prison somewhere, that are already overly feeled. Use tax payers money to supply them a defense attorney, food and a cell. Yeah this was a great idea. *** Grant GITMO should have been investigated for the water boarding, but to shut it down was asinine.

Many of the people in Gitmo are innocent of any wrongdoing. In the early days of the 'War on Terror' there was a standing bounty placed on people with a "connection to terrorism".

The REAL terrorists would round up foreign nationals in AFGN, Pakistan, etc and turn them in for the bounty. Most of these people were tourists. Say you happen to be a German citizen of Turkish ethnicity on vacation and you walk down the wrong alley in Peshawar... you get rounded up by an armed gang, they take your passport and documentation, turn you in for a bounty, and then you have to explain to hostile Americans what your doing in a foreign country with no documentation. And you have to explain this to them through a language barrier, while you're being beaten and waterboarded.

This is exactly what happened to Murat Kurnaz and many other GITMO detainees.

[Hundo®]

i think tony put me on ignore because i kept pummeling his statements?

[§treet_§peed]

yea but the way echonova put it, you'd have to be in the womb to not get it.

Shit I wish I was still in the damn womb. All nice and cozy. Don't have to do shit lol.

[§treet_§peed]

The big almighty savior Obama that was supposed to deliver us from all bad things as some have said, has done absolutely jack shit for me. Including his waste of billions.

[MachNU]

The only one of these I will even dignify with a comment is:


Many of the people in Gitmo are innocent of any wrongdoing. In the early days of the 'War on Terror' there was a standing bounty placed on people with a "connection to terrorism".

The REAL terrorists would round up foreign nationals in AFGN, Pakistan, etc and turn them in for the bounty. Most of these people were tourists. Say you happen to be a German citizen of Turkish ethnicity on vacation and you walk down the wrong alley in Peshawar... you get rounded up by an armed gang, they take your passport and documentation, turn you in for a bounty, and then you have to explain to hostile Americans what your doing in a foreign country with no documentation. And you have to explain this to them through a language barrier, while you're being beaten and waterboarded.

This is exactly what happened to Murat Kurnaz and many other GITMO detainees.

Why dont you reply to the others if there so blantely wrong? Because there not. On the one you did...

Thats a far one to strive for. Most of those people had CONNECTIONS to terrorism. I mean shit what do you think being a coconspiritor to something is? You knew a act was going to kill people, even if you had nothing more to do than driving the person to there location...your STILL GUILITY! Most of those people had knowledge of people they where after.

Basically saying, your friend comes up to you says he's going to kill someone his whole plan, follows through with the act, you never tell someone about whats going to happen. It comes back to you, you go to jail. Your telling me your innocent of any wrong doing?

[tony]

As far as the deficit goes, notice a pattern here? Unmistakenable pattern.. I do find it funny that a post from a year ago is relevant to a discussion we're having today.. proof that the same issues get brought up over and over with no objective resolve in the conversation, just repititous information.

Since the 1960s, deficits driven largely by increased levels of spending have been the norm, while surpluses were an exception. The current 2008 deficit projection — 2.9 percent of GDP — is slightly above the 45-year historical average of 2.8 percent of GDP.

Average Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP, by Administration

This is info from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.

Federal Spending Has Increased Steadily Regardless of Congressional Leadership

Real annual federal spending has more than tripled since 1965 and has nearly doubled since 1980.

Total Federal Spending, in Billions,1965–2008
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...-Increased.gif

Now.. with those figures I have to concede the point on Federal Spending with Obama.. it is astronomically high for a fiscal year budget. No excuses, no passes.

[MachNU]

Also I am amazed that no one has brought up Obama going to congress over trying to raise the national debt ceiling?

[Bajjani]

Tony, I think you're missing my point. The healthcare will do nothing good, and I've yet to hear one thing it does that IS good.

[zspeed24]

The deficit that Reagan had was not due to the tax cuts that he pushed. It was due to defense spending, social programs, and the true worst recession since the Great Depression.

[Hundo®]

The deficit that Reagan had was not due to the tax cuts that he pushed. It was due to defense spending, social programs, and the true worst recession since the Great Depression.

he doesn't see that. he only see's the information IN FRONT OF HIM. he refuses to dig deeper to see what the actual cause for the deficit was. tony is a surface dweller. he refuses to do any investigation other than what the democratic media will post for him to use as fuel.

[tony]

Tony, I think you're missing my point. The healthcare will do nothing good, and I've yet to hear one thing it does that IS good.

How about researching the subject before forming an opinion? The problem is you're waiting to hear something instead of seeking the information yourself. I state this because I was a strong opponent of Universal Healthcare, hated the idea and I had the same arguments a lot of you had. Then I started researching, I talked to people who live in a system where there is Universal coverage and it changed my outlook on the subject. I never would have changed had I not sought the information and expected someone to come to me with it.

[tony]

he doesn't see that. he only see's the information IN FRONT OF HIM. he refuses to dig deeper to see what the actual cause for the deficit was. tony is a surface dweller. he refuses to do any investigation other than what the democratic media will post for him to use as fuel.

Really? Because I understand that much of Reagan's deficit was due to his military spending, it is how he handled the cold war with Russia, his race to compete militarily and obviously it bankrupted the U.S.S.R, but I guess that is all common knowledge right?

That is all well and good but when you supplement that spending with tax cuts fundamentally the debt will rise. lol I don't even read liberal media, its as annoying as watching Faux news.. I read actual text.

[Total_Blender]

I have no problems with the spending as long as its going into schools, healthcare, roads and bridges, etc etc. Projects that keep people working and keep money circulating. Keynesian economics.

What I do have a problem with is spending money on such a gigantic defense budget. Defense is at 21.6% (DOD + war on terror) while health and social services is 2.30% and education is at 7.32%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...ycategory2.png

If you add up the defense spending of the entire world, the US is paying HALF.

[Bajjani]

How about researching the subject before forming an opinion? The problem is you're waiting to hear something instead of seeking the information yourself. I state this because I was a strong opponent of Universal Healthcare, hated the idea and I had the same arguments a lot of you had. Then I started researching, I talked to people who live in a system where there is Universal coverage and it changed my outlook on the subject. I never would have changed had I not sought the information and expected someone to come to me with it.

Wrong sir. Not on the subject thats an opinion, but I have done research, I've talked to a lot of small business owners, I own a business, I know what it costs me, I have family in Canada, in Europe, I know what the healthcare system is like there, its awful, good luck waiting to see a doctor. Agree to disagree but I still see no benefit to the country as a whole by doing this, mostly because I feel there is none. Maybe you're smarter than me or maybe you have different beliefs on what is good for the country, who knows, I still think it is shit.

[zspeed24]

Wrong sir. Not on the subject thats an opinion, but I have done research, I've talked to a lot of small business owners, I own a business, I know what it costs me, I have family in Canada, in Europe, I know what the healthcare system is like there, its awful, good luck waiting to see a doctor.

TRUTH

[Hundo®]

Really? Because I understand that much of Reagan's deficit was due to his military spending, it is how he handled the cold war with Russia, his race to compete militarily and obviously it bankrupted the U.S.S.R, but I guess that is all common knowledge right?

ACTUALLY IT IS! It's learned upon us regular folk in scewl sistum, ya kno?

to add, i noticed the minute you had a rebuttal to something you dug up the previous post you made to prove your point (back to over a year ago!). But when bajjani asks you what possible positive this socialized health care could provide us, you tell him to "refer to your thread". Knowing full well he will not read pages upon pages trying to find where (if you even did) post what benefits proceed us. So please, enlighten us regular folk tony.

[1SICKLEX]

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

By Mr. Michael D. LaFaive | Nov. 1, 1997
Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?
The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.
In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.
Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.
The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.
In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.





This has been proven over and over again in our economy.

Repped

[1SICKLEX]

As far as the deficit goes, notice a pattern here? Unmistakenable pattern.. I do find it funny that a post from a year ago is relevant to a discussion we're having today.. proof that the same issues get brought up over and over with no objective resolve in the conversation, just repititous information.



Now.. with those figures I have to concede the point on Federal Spending with Obama.. it is astronomically high for a fiscal year budget. No excuses, no passes.

Very good post and another topic at hand, fiscal responsibility. However again, to get out the recession, we need to cut taxes, not bailout banks.

Clinton didn't do it by himself, the Republican led Newt Congress got it passed as well. I wish we could get those guys back in office.

[tony]

ACTUALLY IT IS! It's learned upon us regular folk in scewl sistum, ya kno?

to add, i noticed the minute you had a rebuttal to something you dug up the previous post you made to prove your point (back to over a year ago!). But when bajjani asks you what possible positive this socialized health care could provide us, you tell him to "refer to your thread". Knowing full well he will not read pages upon pages trying to find where (if you even did) post what benefits proceed us. So please, enlighten us regular folk tony.

3 pages is pages upon pages? Find it yourselves, I get tired of posting the same thing over and over. Even in that thread I believe I was quoting myself from before. I'd probably do it if I knew the intent was to be objective rather than rebut whatever is posted.. I already wasted my time on that argument.

[Hundo®]

3 pages is pages upon pages? Find it yourselves, I get tired of posting the same thing over and over. Even in that thread I believe I was quoting myself from before. I'd probably do it if I knew the intent was to be objective rather than rebut whatever is posted.. I already wasted my time on that argument.

i didn't click your link either, because you already proved if you had a point, you'd post it. telling someone to find your point is another way of saying "i don't remember if i actually had one, but if i did, it'd be in there somewhere."

[tony]

Very good post and another topic at hand, fiscal responsibility. However again, to get out the recession, we need to cut taxes, not bailout banks.

Clinton didn't do it by himself, the Republican led Newt Congress got it passed as well. I wish we could get those guys back in office.

Repubs didn't come in till 96, Clinton's second term. Actually Clinton can thank H.W Bush, remember "Read my lips, no new taxes." Then he raised taxes? Yeah, that was the reason he didnt get reelected but the increase catapulted the economy..

[Bajjani]

The bolded are quotes from tony from his other thread, incase anyone was wondering.

From the Economic standpoint, imagine how much more entrepreneurship and innovation we would have when people don't have to worry about health care when they venture out on their own and start their business. Furthermore a lot of you get it F'd up when it comes to a universal plan, its not like nobody pays anything.. there is still a premium to pay but it is substantially less than the $200-$2000 a month premiums you see now.

Well, this is 100% backwards. The tax alone on one of the companies that I own will be approximately 5% of gross REVENUE. That is really about 15% of Gross Profit. And it ends up after overhead being approximately 33% of net profit in a year like 2008. You know one of the easiest ways to cut costs? Layoffs. Hello unemployment (thats already happening). It won't inspire companies to do more R&D, they have to show that as expense in the year it occurs. If the Gov't wanted to inspire R&D they could go back to allowing depreciation over the course the R&D generates revenue. It won't inspire new businesses because the cost of opening a new business goes up DRAMATICALLY. Failed point.


A universal system does nothing but reduce the cost of healthcare so it is easily affordable and obtainable for persons like me who can afford coverage and those making $6.50 an hour who cannot. It also takes away the notion that life decisions our decided on a cost basis and not a need basis. For every story I hear about someone in another country WAITING for something I can give you another story of someone REJECTED because they did not have adequate insurance or the procedure was not cost effective.

Call me unsympathetic, call me an ass, maybe that person making minimum wage should go read a fucking book, learn a trade, and get out of the fucking ghetto. I know plenty of high school dropouts that make 10-25 an hour with 1.5 OT and bring home 70k a year, hell a truck driver brings more than 6.50. It is to bad that people aren't hiring because they are doing this new healthcare bill that increases costs to companies. Man, that sucks.

What else does Brazil and Russia, China and India have in common that would cause them all to be emerging economically? Its far from a coincidence that ALL four... 100% of them have a Universal Healthcare system. I don't see how some of you can think it has this great negative impact but can't fathom the idea that it has a great impact in another way as well.

Brazil has a lot more exports. Russia has a growing stock market. China has cheap labor and more exports, and India has cheap labor. Do you want to know why they are growing? Because everyone is buying their shit, it has nothing to do with healthcare. Just saying.

I'll gladly wait an extra hour or two..even a month I don't care if it means that the person that is building the roads I drive on, the individual who makes my sandwich at Subway.. the teacher who teaches my child in school can all get the healthcare they require because currently a lot of them cannot.

Not everyone has an extra hour or two, or a month. My cousin's husband had an eye infection, they gave him eye drops, he really had a detached retina and because they had a nurse (not a dr) diagnose him, the nurse didn't know the symptoms, they pushed him away, hes not 100% blind in that eye. This was in your socialist healthcare economy. Call me fuckin stupid but I'd rather pay for my own healthcare and get proper treatment.

I only read some of your posts and even then I browsed thru them, I don't feel like reading all the bitching back in forth in the old thread.


Someone said it in your old thread as well, "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

If the bill passes, companys will increase costs and decrease work force, outsource what they can for cheaper services (to india for example), unemployment goes up, prices of our goods go up unless they manage to cut enough costs, consumers end up having to pay higher prices, and who gets fucked inthe end.

[Hundo®]

The bolded are quotes from tony from his other thread, incase anyone was wondering.

From the Economic standpoint, imagine how much more entrepreneurship and innovation we would have when people don't have to worry about health care when they venture out on their own and start their business. Furthermore a lot of you get it F'd up when it comes to a universal plan, its not like nobody pays anything.. there is still a premium to pay but it is substantially less than the $200-$2000 a month premiums you see now.

Well, this is 100% backwards. The tax alone on one of the companies that I own will be approximately 5% of gross REVENUE. That is really about 15% of Gross Profit. And it ends up after overhead being approximately 33% of net profit in a year like 2008. You know one of the easiest ways to cut costs? Layoffs. Hello unemployment (thats already happening). It won't inspire companies to do more R&D, they have to show that as expense in the year it occurs. If the Gov't wanted to inspire R&D they could go back to allowing depreciation over the course the R&D generates revenue. It won't inspire new businesses because the cost of opening a new business goes up DRAMATICALLY. Failed point.


A universal system does nothing but reduce the cost of healthcare so it is easily affordable and obtainable for persons like me who can afford coverage and those making $6.50 an hour who cannot. It also takes away the notion that life decisions our decided on a cost basis and not a need basis. For every story I hear about someone in another country WAITING for something I can give you another story of someone REJECTED because they did not have adequate insurance or the procedure was not cost effective.

Call me unsympathetic, call me an ass, maybe that person making minimum wage should go read a fucking book, learn a trade, and get out of the fucking ghetto. I know plenty of high school dropouts that make 10-25 an hour with 1.5 OT and bring home 70k a year, hell a truck driver brings more than 6.50. It is to bad that people aren't hiring because they are doing this new healthcare bill that increases costs to companies. Man, that sucks.

What else does Brazil and Russia, China and India have in common that would cause them all to be emerging economically? Its far from a coincidence that ALL four... 100% of them have a Universal Healthcare system. I don't see how some of you can think it has this great negative impact but can't fathom the idea that it has a great impact in another way as well.

Brazil has a lot more exports. Russia has a growing stock market. China has cheap labor and more exports, and India has cheap labor. Do you want to know why they are growing? Because everyone is buying their shit, it has nothing to do with healthcare. Just saying.

I'll gladly wait an extra hour or two..even a month I don't care if it means that the person that is building the roads I drive on, the individual who makes my sandwich at Subway.. the teacher who teaches my child in school can all get the healthcare they require because currently a lot of them cannot.

Not everyone has an extra hour or two, or a month. My cousin's husband had an eye infection, they gave him eye drops, he really had a detached retina and because they had a nurse (not a dr) diagnose him, the nurse didn't know the symptoms, they pushed him away, hes not 100% blind in that eye. This was in your socialist healthcare economy. Call me fuckin stupid but I'd rather pay for my own healthcare and get proper treatment.

I only read some of your posts and even then I browsed thru them, I don't feel like reading all the bitching back in forth in the old thread.


Someone said it in your old thread as well, "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

If the bill passes, companys will increase costs and decrease work force, outsource what they can for cheaper services (to india for example), unemployment goes up, prices of our goods go up unless they manage to cut enough costs, consumers end up having to pay higher prices, and who gets fucked inthe end.

/thread