Simple Math Shows Obama is a Liar!

[Mags]

Obama is going around saying that he only wants to raise taxes on those individuals making $200K a year, or famillies making $250K. Ok, fair enough.

1. He says this is an issue about fairness - that the US tax code isn't fair. FACT - the OECD has shown that the US tax code is the most progressive in the world - so our tax code needs to move in the OTHER direction to be "fair".

2. Obama's idea in taxing the rich (as he defines above by the $200K/$250K argument) and to "protect" the middle class is to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2 tax brackets. That would mean the 35% bracket would move to 39.6% and the 30% bracket to move to 33%. FACT - Obama is an outright liar. The current 30% bracket starts at $178K for a family - HIS definition of middle class - so his strategy won't only hit Obama's definition of "rich". Another lie by our president

3. Obama has strongly conveyed to people (mostly the simpletons that voted for him) that by removing the tax cuts only for the rich, this will go a long way to solving our nation's fiscal problems... FACT - the increased taxes on the "rich" will raise just over 22B in 2013. In 2012, Obama added $1.1 TRILLION to our debt - in one year alone. The added income by taxing the "rich" will only pay 2% of Obama's current budget deficit, and certainly won't help the debt at the rate Obama is spending.

FACT - we have to SIGNIFICANTLY decrease our spending, including entitlements. FACT - we have to increase our revenue SIGNFICANTLY - which means making our tax system more fair and asking the 47% who don't currently pay taxes to chip in. It is simple math, Mr. President. Your class warfare approach, along with unlimited spending, is making things worse. Yes, you got relected by giving stuff way, which has made our problems worse as a country. The country's loss is your gain, I suppose.

 

[lowell]

What's he going to do when the rich raise their prices on customers like Denny's is considering? The "fair share " and "war on women" topics are just to deflect many of the real problems in this country.
Going to be a tough fours years...but then Clinton or Biden can rescue us....

 

[StevieD]

Soooooooooo Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and unemployment still rose. So you want him to extend them again? Why? What proof is there that lowering the tax personal tax rate, at these levels, creates jobs?

 

[Skulnik]

Soooooooooo Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and unemployment still rose. So you want him to extend them again? Why? What proof is there that lowering the tax personal tax rate, at these levels, creates jobs?

ObamaCare.

 

[Mags]

Soooooooooo Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and unemployment still rose. So you want him to extend them again? Why? What proof is there that lowering the tax personal tax rate, at these levels, creates jobs?

Stevie - the problem is, he didn't just extend them - he also added a ton of regulation, including Obamacare.

He should have left well enough alone. Extend the cuts and NOT pass Ocare.

I absolutely LOVE what Denny's is doing - and it sounds like more business's are doing the same. Put Ocare as a separate charge on each bill. Makes total sense.

I think a lot more Americans (including myself) didn't mind Obama prior to Ocare. But the methods they used to ram it through, the poorly thought out bill, etc - that was the last straw that got us to the divided country we are today. He ignored the will of the American people on this issue. There hadn't been, and still isn't to this day, a poll out there that shows people want this bill. But O didn't care - as always, it was always about Obama and his "legacy" - not what the people want.

 

[Duff Miver]

Get a job, Maggot, so you can contribute something than whining on the internet all day.

 

[StevieD]

Stevie - the problem is, he didn't just extend them - he also added a ton of regulation, including Obamacare.

He should have left well enough alone. Extend the cuts and NOT pass Ocare.

I absolutely LOVE what Denny's is doing - and it sounds like more business's are doing the same. Put Ocare as a separate charge on each bill. Makes total sense.

I think a lot more Americans (including myself) didn't mind Obama prior to Ocare. But the methods they used to ram it through, the poorly thought out bill, etc - that was the last straw that got us to the divided country we are today. He ignored the will of the American people on this issue. There hadn't been, and still isn't to this day, a poll out there that shows people want this bill. But O didn't care - as always, it was always about Obama and his "legacy" - not what the people want.

As I asked before in other threads and never got an answer, what if there was no Obamacare? What would the Health Care premiums be? They were rising up to 40% in one year. I would like to see the difference that say a Denny's would pay for employee Health Care vs insuring the same amount of employees without it. Also, you guys never figure in the toll showing up at hospitals ER's without insurance takes on the rest of us who have insurance.

 

[Mags]

As I asked before in other threads and never got an answer, what if there was no Obamacare? What would the Health Care premiums be? They were rising up to 40% in one year. I would like to see the difference that say a Denny's would pay for employee Health Care vs insuring the same amount of employees without it. Also, you guys never figure in the toll showing up at hospitals ER's without insurance takes on the rest of us who have insurance.

Fair questions....

I can tell you this - the cost shifting that occurs from Medicaid/Medicare dwarfs the amount that happens due to people without insurance using the ER.

The big elephant in the room that nobody is talking about..... mark this down and remember it - wait until early 2014, when you want to get in and see a doctor... it will take forever. A lot of new people have free insurance then - and then damn will use it.

 

[StevieD]

Fair questions....

I can tell you this - the cost shifting that occurs from Medicaid/Medicare dwarfs the amount that happens due to people without insurance using the ER.

The big elephant in the room that nobody is talking about..... mark this down and remember it - wait until early 2014, when you want to get in and see a doctor... it will take forever. A lot of new people have free insurance then - and then damn will use it.

That is a true concern. But something had to change or small business would not be able to insure any employees at the way the rates were going up. In Mass everyone is insured or should be thanks to Romneycare and there is a long wait to see a specialist for the first time. But still people get screwed because some have insurance that is basically useless.

I pay 25% of my insurance and I pay over $1000 a month for me and my wife .:shrug: It is good insurance but it doesn't cover everything.

 

[Duff Miver]

A lot of new people have free insurance then - and then damn will use it.

And what's wrong with that?

And what would you rather see - large numbers of people who cannot get medical care?

There you go *Mags*. Two reasonable questions posed without any aspersions against you.

Your turn: Post reasonable answers.

I'll wait.:0008

 

[Mags]

That is a true concern. But something had to change or small business would not be able to insure any employees at the way the rates were going up. In Mass everyone is insured or should be thanks to Romneycare and there is a long wait to see a specialist for the first time. But still people get screwed because some have insurance that is basically useless.

I pay 25% of my insurance and I pay over $1000 a month for me and my wife .:shrug: It is good insurance but it doesn't cover everything.

Stevie - the biggest misconception is that ObamaCare will decrease costs. FACT - there is nothing in the bill to decrease costs or utilization. In truth, it will do the opposite, as the mandated coverage has richer benefits than many people have today. It is an actuarial fact that the richer the benefit plan, the MUCH higher the claim cost (more than it should be, numberswise).

You pay 25% of the premium, and that is $1000 a month? That is a $4,000 monthly premium (assuming your employer pays 75% of the premium). That is outrageous - and is the result of Romneycare - you are paying for everyone else.

I'm not sure what you have as far as deductible (guessing it is pretty low, like $1000) and not sure your age (must be pretty high for a premium like that)...

But to give you a comparison - a policy in WI, with a $1500 deductible, husband and wife aged 62 in the Individual Market, would run you $1,072.35 a month - that is the full premium, so your portion would be 25% of that.

The difference - guaranteed issue and Obama/Romney Care.

People will be shocked when we roll into 2014 when they see the premiums. Obama has made everyone think they would go down - and they are going to go up substantially. THEN the shit will really hit the fan.

 

[Mags]

And what's wrong with that?

And what would you rather see - large numbers of people who cannot get medical care?

There you go *Mags*. Two reasonable questions posed without any aspersions against you.

Your turn: Post reasonable answers.

I'll wait.:0008

I don't believe health insurance is a *right*. It is a product, like life insurance, auto insurance.

I do believe everyone should be able to purchase health insurance - with the best way via state high risk pools. Nobody should be forced to purchase it if they choose not to, or possibly have some type of religious/social objection to it.

Yes, we should have medicare for the destitute - and 100% of the FPL is a good level to continue.

But we should not be giving premium subsidies to families making as much as $90K in a year. That is ridiculous.

In addition. Obamacare has made insurance much more expensive due to additional benefit mandates that cover costs that are routine in nature, yes, like birth control. This is a budgetable expense, $9 a month at Walmart that people know they have and can afford to pay. No different that an oil change for your car - which auto insurance does not cover.

Insurance should be for unpredictable, expensive events - which is the true definition of insurance. Not an office visit to get drugs for the common cold.

Finally, Ocare requires people to take plans that are much richer (lower deductibles for example) than many people currently have or want. After all, the whole idea of insurance is financial protection against catastrophic loss.

Just like 47% should contribute towards the federal income tax (minimum of 5% of income feels appropriate), those same people should also contribute towards their health insurance and not rely on others to pay the bill for them.

I think everyone should have a free pony too, but I doubt that will happen.

Summary: Everyone should be able to purchase "a" health insurance product of some kind, but nobody should be forced to. And I don't think it is appropriate to continue to lean on a small subset of the population (those making over $90K - which is a small subset) to give free coverage to those who have made other choices or lack the will or effort to be successful.

 

[Mags]

And what's wrong with that?

And what would you rather see - large numbers of people who cannot get medical care?

There you go *Mags*. Two reasonable questions posed without any aspersions against you.

Your turn: Post reasonable answers.

I'll wait.:0008

Oh, yes, one other thing. I won't hold it against you, because the entire liberal left say the same thing.

There is a difference between health insurance and medical care. Anyone can get medical care if they so choose. Insurance is not required for care. And there are inexpensive, some even free, providers of care out there, such as community clinics.

So, yes, people can get care today if they so choose. No they can't have cadillac level care, but not everyone drives a cadillac either - some folks drive a Ford and are very happy with that.

 

[StevieD]

Stevie - the biggest misconception is that ObamaCare will decrease costs. FACT - there is nothing in the bill to decrease costs or utilization. In truth, it will do the opposite, as the mandated coverage has richer benefits than many people have today. It is an actuarial fact that the richer the benefit plan, the MUCH higher the claim cost (more than it should be, numberswise).

You pay 25% of the premium, and that is $1000 a month? That is a $4,000 monthly premium (assuming your employer pays 75% of the premium). That is outrageous - and is the result of Romneycare - you are paying for everyone else.

I'm not sure what you have as far as deductible (guessing it is pretty low, like $1000) and not sure your age (must be pretty high for a premium like that)...

But to give you a comparison - a policy in WI, with a $1500 deductible, husband and wife aged 62 in the Individual Market, would run you $1,072.35 a month - that is the full premium, so your portion would be 25% of that.

The difference - guaranteed issue and Obama/Romney Care.

People will be shocked when we roll into 2014 when they see the premiums. Obama has made everyone think they would go down - and they are going to go up substantially. THEN the shit will really hit the fan.

You can't really judge premiums unless you compare benefits of insurance. I can get a much lower rate but it covers next to nothing.

I have not seen from anyone proof of what Obamacare will do. Good or bad. But for all the hate of this being spewed you would think that somewhere there are numbers showing what the projected costs of Health Care woiuld be.

 

[Duff Miver]

Oh, yes, one other thing. I won't hold it against you, because the entire liberal left say the same thing.

There is a difference between health insurance and medical care. Anyone can get medical care if they so choose. Insurance is not required for care. And there are inexpensive, some even free, providers of care out there, such as community clinics.

So, yes, people can get care today if they so choose. No they can't have cadillac level care, but not everyone drives a cadillac either - some folks drive a Ford and are very happy with that.

I politely asked you two very simple questions, and you answered neither.

You win: ASSHOLE OF THE DAY.

 

[Mags]

I politely asked you two very simple questions, and you answered neither.

You win: ASSHOLE OF THE DAY.

Actually that would be you.

I answered both of them.

People can get care without insurance - they are not the same thing. So #2 is irrelevant - everyone can get care today.

The first one - like I said - what's wrong with that is that it shouldn't be free - people should pay for what they consume. If they choose to buy something else, that's fine.

You need to actually read answers.

 

[azbob]

If the tax rate on the rich goes up by 10%, does any idiot other than the simpletons in Washington and on this forum think that 10% more dollars will be collected from wealthy taxpayers?

Tax experts are already working on continued manipulation of the loopholes and flawed tax codes to figure out hoiw to avoid paying more.

People who are not rich and who do not have that expertise, will pay 100% of whaever increase is directed to them.

Why....because the people making the laws and refusing to adjust the code are in the first category above...the same ones who use the loopholes to avoid paying their fair share.

Further...it is not just Romney who legally avoids the full impact...it is anyone with a brain. Reform the tax code and you don't have to raise rates.

 

[Duff Miver]

Actually that would be you.

I answered both of them.

People can get care without insurance - they are not the same thing. So #2 is irrelevant - everyone can get care today.

The first one - like I said - what's wrong with that is that it shouldn't be free - people should pay for what they consume. If they choose to buy something else, that's fine.

You need to actually read answers.

If everyone can get care today - some of them in free clinics where the docs are unpaid, then how in Hell, when everyone is insured and docs always get paid, will there be a shortage of docs?

Do you pay for the free schooling your kids consume? The free roads you drive on? The free fire and police protection? The free inspection of the food you eat, the free certification of the drugs you use? The free military which protects you? The free agencies which assure that your water is safe to drink, the air you breathe is safe to breathe?

No, you don't. We all pay for those things because we all need them.

And we all need health care too, so we should all pay for that.

What we don't need to pay for is leeches like you who contribute nothing of value. You suck up all the free goodies, and in return you add nothing of value. If you dropped dead today, the rest of us would never notice.

The least you can do is give back, in taxes, some of the money you are paid for contributing nothing.

You, Maggot are the biggest taker of free stuff there is.

 

[Mags]

If the tax rate on the rich goes up by 10%, does any idiot other than the simpletons in Washington and on this forum think that 10% more dollars will be collected from wealthy taxpayers?

Tax experts are already working on continued manipulation of the loopholes and flawed tax codes to figure out hoiw to avoid paying more.

People who are not rich and who do not have that expertise, will pay 100% of whaever increase is directed to them.

Why....because the people making the laws and refusing to adjust the code are in the first category above...the same ones who use the loopholes to avoid paying their fair share.

Further...it is not just Romney who legally avoids the full impact...it is anyone with a brain. Reform the tax code and you don't have to raise rates.

Exactly....

What's wrong with a flat 15% on everyone, with no deductions or exemptions?

Then EVERYONE has skin in the game and is paying tax. The rich pay the most, because they make the most and they can't hide it via loopholes.

AND most importantly, it would finally reduce spending - because people won't be voting themselves free stuff, when they have to actually pay for it via taxes.

This is such an easy solution - I don't know why they don't just do this immediately and be done with it.

 

[RAYMOND]

Obama is going around saying that he only wants to raise taxes on those individuals making $200K a year, or famillies making $250K. Ok, fair enough.

1. He says this is an issue about fairness - that the US tax code isn't fair. FACT - the OECD has shown that the US tax code is the most progressive in the world - so our tax code needs to move in the OTHER direction to be "fair".

2. Obama's idea in taxing the rich (as he defines above by the $200K/$250K argument) and to "protect" the middle class is to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2 tax brackets. That would mean the 35% bracket would move to 39.6% and the 30% bracket to move to 33%. FACT - Obama is an outright liar. The current 30% bracket starts at $178K for a family - HIS definition of middle class - so his strategy won't only hit Obama's definition of "rich". Another lie by our president

3. Obama has strongly conveyed to people (mostly the simpletons that voted for him) that by removing the tax cuts only for the rich, this will go a long way to solving our nation's fiscal problems... FACT - the increased taxes on the "rich" will raise just over 22B in 2013. In 2012, Obama added $1.1 TRILLION to our debt - in one year alone. The added income by taxing the "rich" will only pay 2% of Obama's current budget deficit, and certainly won't help the debt at the rate Obama is spending.

FACT - we have to SIGNIFICANTLY decrease our spending, including entitlements. FACT - we have to increase our revenue SIGNFICANTLY - which means making our tax system more fair and asking the 47% who don't currently pay taxes to chip in. It is simple math, Mr. President. Your class warfare approach, along with unlimited spending, is making things worse. Yes, you got relected by giving stuff way, which has made our problems worse as a country. The country's loss is your gain, I suppose.

the people who voted for obama should be put to death:facepalm: