Printable View
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437241]MB the answer is simple but you choose to ignore it by looking at the effects and not the cause of the problem, which is career politicians. The Founding Fathers did not intend for folks to come to Washington and STAY, but to come serve a term then return to their "day job" back home. The simple answer is term limits for both the House and Senate, but I doubt the political will exists.[/QUOTE]But bigger than Dallas we sure as hell agree on this!
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437248]You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.[/QUOTE]Isn't Jackson in a similair situation as you?
And by the way, fuckk Obama care. Its worthless beyond belief. It was written by the same insurance companies it was supposed to rein in.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437248]You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jackson;437229]3. Without detailing my business activities here in Argentina, Rock knows fully well that his [I]"contributing nothing"[/I] comment is completely erroneous. In addition, given that I pay Argentina import taxes, Argentine sales taxes, Argentine utility taxes, Argentine property taxes, and Argentine income taxes, one could hardly claim that I am "[I]leeching[/I]" by living here.
Once again, facts aren't important to liberals, only emotion is important.
[/QUOTE]The majority of successful leftist businessmen, whether in the United States, Venezuela, or Argentina, take advantage of the system. They either want to justify that they're the good guys in their own minds, or they're just plain corrupt.
So, Rock Harders, do the subsidies that benefit you exceed the Argentine taxes you pay? And, on the subject of taxes, do you pay yours correctly? Are you correctly reporting your Argentine income on your Argentine and US tax returns? Are you paying US income tax on all the interest and rental income received by your Argentine company and any loans you've taken out, as required by US law? Or are you another lefty like Leona Helmsley who believes only stupid people pay high taxes, and money grows on trees to provide subsidies for your business?
Reverend, Please note that your beloved Democrats are as responsible as anyone for corporate welfare. And the "teabaggers" that you malign are the ones who want to STOP handouts to big business. I agree with you about high prices in the drug industry, which result from anti-competitive practices and patent laws that are too generous.
Well here we are in the Brave New World of ObamaCare.
I have to laugh at both the insurance companies and the hospital corporations as they reap what they have sown by jumping on the ObamaCare bandwagon.
When ObamaCare was being pushed through:
The hospital corporations were on board because they would no longer have to do cost shifting from those who paid for care and the indigent care they were FORCED to provide via their emergency room services and the admissions which followed because now everyone would have insurance coverage.
The insurance companies were on board because they were about to receive the gift of everyone being FORCED to have comprehensive coverage rather they needed it or not thereby providing them with new clients at higher premium rates.
Now reality is setting in with more than 6 Million folks losing their bare bones catastrophic policies but then getting a pass by Obama, the young invincibles who are to pay the bulk of the premiums are not signing up for coverage, and the majority of those getting on ObamaCare are the older and sicker folks requiring immediate outlays of funds for treatment. Bottom line is there is no money in the kitty to pay claims. Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437253]Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?[/QUOTE]From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.
The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437257]From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.
The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.[/QUOTE]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437259]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.[/QUOTE]Then you and Jackson agree. He has held out the health care system in Argentina, part of which is paid with tax proceeds, as a model for the USA.
This is just the opinion of one "right wing" lackey, but I'd have no problem subsidizing other people's healthcare to some extent, provided the money were spent efficiently. In the USA it's not. Obamacare is doubling down on a failed system.
"James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.".
Our Founders' constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.".
[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/123113-684710-all-powerful-government-now-stomps-on-americans-rights.htm#ixzz2pBzGzwRD[/URL].
Don B.
[QUOTE=RockHarders;437259]In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.[/QUOTE]Hypothetically speaking, [u]IF[/u] you had any partners in your business, then it would be fair to say that your partners also get "credit" for paying part of these taxes, given that they were business expenses that reduced the profits to all partners.
Just say'n...
Jax
[b]Top 5 O-Care stories to watch[/b]
“The healthcare law faced a very tough year in 2013, but that could pale in comparison to what happens in 2014.”
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/193776-top-five-obamacare-stories-to-watch-in-2014[/url]
And, since Democrats (Like WT 69) take so much joy from talking about how ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While it's true they both “individual mandate” it’s not the same thing.
Massachusetts facts:
Massachusetts has the [url=http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/12/insurance-premiums-mass-expensive]highest insurance cost in the nation;[/url]
Half of primary care doctors and 55% of specialists are not taking new patients and [url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/12/why-hard-find-doctor/AZmAhh8DJowD63cIVF0vPO/story.html]wait time for an appointment[/url] is increasing.
Regardless of the name calling by those on the left 2014 is going to be a long year for ObamaCare, and we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.
[s]Just another "right wing lackey” report.[/s]
All the lame fearmongering and attacks have failed to stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, that moves America forward in expanding access to healthcare, banning exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and reducing medical bankruptcies. This is the solid foundation of the ACA that ensures it is here to stay, because most Americans support the core provisions of the new law.
Republicans jump from one myopic point to another, hoping to rile up Americans. What a laugh. Truly pathetic, but this is what we have come to expect from them. In 2014, things will become smoother after the implementation bumps, and expect more and more people to tire of the attacks. People will want concrete proposals on how to improve the law. And they'll want focus on other issues, too.
Notice how Republicans don't contrast the ACA with their failed voucher proposal. That's because a voucher proposal, while ideologically pleasing to some, would not have and will not reform healthcare the way the core provisions of the ACA do.
The hardship exemption for those who had their plans cancelled is only for one year. They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.
[QUOTE=Esten;437271]They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.[/QUOTE]Yea, that's going to go over like a lead balloon.
I can just hear the Millennials now: [I]"What! Obamacare isn't FREE? You mean that I have to PAY even if I don't want it!"[/I]
Thanks,
Jax
There's an article in this month's Reason Magazine that I wish I could link to, for the benefit of Reverend Black Shirt and WT69, but it's not on the web. Reason, by the way, is hard core libertarian. They hate Republicans as much as Democrats. (I lean Republican because it's more important to me that government stay out of my pocket, versus out of my bedroom).
Anyway, they provide examples of how financial companies have corrupted or swayed politicians. And the politicians are Democrats. Republicans tried to do away with the estate (death) tax. It's both unfair, and the costs associated with the tax exceed the actual amount raised by it. The heavy fire power to keep the tax in place came not from left wing idealists, but rather from life insurance companies. Life insurance companies benefit heavily from the estate tax, because the death tax is not levied on benefits, and also because benefits can be used to avoid having to sell the family business or family farm when someone dies.
A second example was William Hambrecht, founder of a couple of investment banking firms. He put Paul Pelosi Jr., Nancy's son, on his firm's payroll. He also put Pelosi and her husband into initial public offerings (IPO's) where she could flip shares and make big profits. [b](Sound familiar Esten?)[/b] So when Hambrecht wanted to push through a change in regulations for IPO's, Pelosi was at hand to help influence Barney Frank and other members of the House Financial Services Committee.
It bears repeating, you should cease your continual bitching about the Tea Party, as they're the only ones out there trying to stop this bull shit.
There is plenty of political corruption on both sides, Democrat and Republican. Ever see anyone, Democrat or Republican, who went to either the House or Senate poor but did not leave rich?
Term limits will not solve all the problems but it would make the politicians to expensive to keep buying every few years and who knows maybe we find a few honest politicians. I know it's an oxymoron!
Reminds me of a joke about politicians my grandfather told me.
Farmer takes a jug of moonshine, a Bible and a $20 gold piece and places them on a counter in his barn. He calls his son who is turning 18 over and tells him to go into the barn and to select what he wants from the items on the counter. The farmer tells his son he will know what his son will be when he makes a man by his selection.
The son enters the barn and sees the jug of moonshine, the Bible and the $20 gold piece. The son thinks about these items for a moment and then takes a swing of the moonshine and puts the jug under one arm, puts the $20 gold piece in his pocket and the Bible under the other arm and walks our of the barn.
The farmer see's his son, shakes his head and swears. My boy is going to be a damn politician!
Monger on.