House Democrats Pass Healthcare Reform

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fractions. Rob, we're not talking about your logic here. I'm baffled how you could be paying SS with-holdings (which is different than taxes) for five years when you're 19. So you have been paying it since you were....14? Ok. certainly not taxes themselves really, as you no doubt qualified for 100% return. Show me a 14 year old kid that can make enough money himself that he actually has to pay income taxes.

I'd love to hear more!
 
I'll be twenty in less than a month. That means I've been paying taxes for 5 years since I was 15. When I got my first real job. And the SS trust fund is part of the general tax fund now. That happened a few years ago. I think it was Lyndon B. Johnson.
 
First of all Social Security didnt fail, its simply gotten slightly obsolete because when it was created it was calculated on the life expectancy and population size of people living in the 1930s and later 1960s when Nixon revised it. Most of the problems can be fixed with adjustments like increasing the retirement age. Most experts will tell you that SS has issues but that its not the biggest worry, medicare is far more problematic.

Secondly if you look at the popularity of Social Security, I think that too is testimount of how successful its been. When Bush tried to privatize SS in 2005 (by letting Wall Street manage it...go figure) he was tarred, feathered, and rode out of DC on a rail. And most of the critics did NOT come from liberals, but from older people living in the Red States.

And Thank God they did complain, because if Bush had gotten his way these people would now be on the street due the economic meltdown caused by the very people Bush wanted to manage social security. This is a case in point example of why social programs like social security, and healthcare cannot be trusted in the hands of private organizations.

You say that the Bill is bad? I don't think its great either, but the status quo is even worse, so its better than nothing. There are some gems in the Bill like banning HMO from dropping polcies of people with preexsisting conditions, the closing of the doughnut hole, and the cutting of prosciption drug prices are good programs. Personally though, I would have pushed for a single payer program as that it the only system known to actually work.

The real problem with the bill was that the rightwing was so wound up in embarrassing Obama just for political gain that they refused to participate in making a better bill, which is a shame because I do think their are Republicans who were willing to make a deal but were sidelined by the crazies and the fact that the Health Insurence Industry Lobby basically controls the party. The GOP ran as the party of NO and still lost, thats going to comeback to haunt them in november as they painted themselves as the partisan obstructionist party with no ideas who lobbied for the status quo. Boy thats a winning campaign slogan, espicially by the times the elections come around the popular aspects of the bill will have full public support.

Read the article from David Frum (a major CONSERVATIVE Author) he calles this the GOP's Waterloo, a states why the GOP played this very badly from the start.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

BTW, be aware that the fact that the bill passed makes it the beginning of the healthcare debate not the end. There is still alot of work to do although it will probably be done by a different president.
I agree, this bill is a major improvement over what Bush gave us. Which was essentially bugger all.
 
I'll be twenty in less than a month. That means I've been paying taxes for 5 years since I was 15. When I got my first real job. And the SS trust fund is part of the general tax fund now. That happened a few years ago. I think it was Lyndon B. Johnson.
Lyndon Johnson, Jesus Christ! what do they teach in school?
Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law.

This time I insist you supply sources for your statement:
"And the SS trust fund is part of the general tax fund now."
 
Lyndon Johnson, Jesus Christ! what do they teach in school?
Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law.

This time I insist you supply sources for your statement:
"And the SS trust fund is part of the general tax fund now."


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?

The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.
 
My main problem with American taxes is the existence of the tax rate cap. If they earn several dozen million dollars a month, which is far more than most people will spend or earn in a lifetime, and greatly exceeds their personal expenses, they surely won't miss some more of that money.

Unless they do like a dragon and make a bed out of their earnings. Then they'll miss it.
 
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?

The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

You left off the first sentence in the response quoted:
"Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities."

"The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund"

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."


"The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets. These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs."

Your statement:
"And the SS trust fund is part of the general tax fund now."
Is completely false!
What is more is you knew this when you posted your response. AS the above statements I quoted are from your source.
 
Now that we have a better healthcare system, let's fake a military coup to get rid of our debts.

Yes, I shamelessly stole that joke from the onion....don't hurt me.
 
My main problem with American taxes is the existence of the tax rate cap. If they earn several dozen million dollars a month, which is far more than most people will spend or earn in a lifetime, and greatly exceeds their personal expenses, they surely won't miss some more of that money.

Unless they do like a dragon and make a bed out of their earnings. Then they'll miss it.
This is moraly bankrupt. The rich have as much Right to thier earnings as anybody else. There is no way to be fair with an income tax unless it is flat, shouldn't matter how much you make. Everybody should pay income tax if there is one & pay the same rate. The so called progressive rate is nothing more than class envy/warfare.
 
George, this comes back to basic math again. If the income tax rate is 10%, someone paying 10% of 100 is going to be losing a LOT more money than someone paying 10% of 1,000. Flat taxes are simply a way to further divide the rich from the bulk of society.
 
George, this comes back to basic math again. If the income tax rate is 10%, someone paying 10% of 100 is going to be losing a LOT more money than someone paying 10% of 1,000. Flat taxes are simply a way to further divide the rich from the bulk of society.
10 % Tax rate;
Paying 10% of $100 = $10.00
Paying 10% of $1,000.00 =$100.00

Rob stick with your Music Major, mathematics is obviously not your strong suit.

The person paying the $100.00 in taxes is paying 10 times more than someone who only pays taxes on $100.00.

Is the college you are going to accredited?
 
10 % Tax rate;
Paying 10% of $100 = $10.00
Paying 10% of $1,000.00 =$100.00

Rob stick with your Music Major, mathematics is obviously not your strong suit.

The person paying the $100.00 in taxes is paying 10 times more than someone who only pays taxes on $100.00.

Is the college you are going to accredited?

Think about it this way, Chukpike. If I gave you 100 dollars and asked for 10 back, then gave Redneck 1,000 dollars and asked for 100 back, who would you feel was getting the short end of the stick? You or Redneck? I personally feel like I shouldn't have to pay as much since I don't make as much. Someone who makes $300,000 a year is not going to miss his money as much as someone who only makes $30,000 a year.


EDIT: This will be my last response to you if you refuse to stick to the topic of health care reform. Mmmmkaaayyyy?
 
Think about it this way, Chukpike. If I gave you 100 dollars and asked for 10 back, then gave Redneck 1,000 dollars and asked for 100 back, who would you feel was getting the short end of the stick? You or Redneck? I personally feel like I shouldn't have to pay as much since I don't make as much. Someone who makes $300,000 a year is not going to miss his money as much as someone who only makes $30,000 a year.


EDIT: This will be my last response to you if you refuse to stick to the topic of health care reform. Mmmmkaaayyyy?

ok but what if that person that makes 300,000 becuase their a doctor and went to school for 16 years, straight which is h@!$ on earth, and then work their butt of, while the guy working at mcdonalds making 25000 grand a year is doing so becuase he didnt graudate high school becuase hes lazy, didnt go to college becuase hes lazy, so the person who spent their life to try to make that income should be punished for their hard work? Most people who make alot of money make it becuase they work their butts off trying to make, theres always exceptions, like inherited wealth and the such.

Also i like the insurance reforms, but lets take the insurance away from the employer and make the insurance companies fight over our business, this will bring costs down and provide more benifts, as the insurance will provide more benifts to lure in customers.
 
Think about it this way, Chukpike. If I gave you 100 dollars and asked for 10 back, then gave Redneck 1,000 dollars and asked for 100 back, who would you feel was getting the short end of the stick? You or Redneck? I personally feel like I shouldn't have to pay as much since I don't make as much. Someone who makes $300,000 a year is not going to miss his money as much as someone who only makes $30,000 a year.

10% of $300,000 is $30,000, if someone is smart enough to make $300,000 a year don't you think they will notice $30,000 is missing?

I will talk about Health Care if you will stop doing bad math.:lol:

EDIT: This will be my last response to you if you refuse to stick to the topic of health care reform. Mmmmkaaayyyy?

Let's talk about Health Care, something you haven't done in about 4 pages of posts.
"Obama signs order affirming ban on federal funds for abortions"
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-obama-healthcare25-2010mar25,0,5808676.story

Looks like Obama's plan doesn't include women.

California could take big hit from healthcare overhaul

"The landmark federal reforms could cost the state $2 billion to $3 billion annually. State officials say there needs to be more of a partnership with the U.S. government.".....
"On Wednesday the governor told reporters that Washington has "shifted the funding from the federal government and said, 'Hey, you state, we want to cut down on our deficit. So you pick up the difference. . . .' And it will cost us $3 billion more."

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-cap25-2010mar25,0,3079004.column

That is the cost to 1 state. Now you know why so many states have all ready sued to stop the plan.
 
Last edited:
"Obama signs order affirming ban on federal funds for abortions"
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-obama-healthcare25-2010mar25,0,5808676.story

Looks like Obama's plan doesn't include women.

California could take big hit from healthcare overhaul

"The landmark federal reforms could cost the state $2 billion to $3 billion annually. State officials say there needs to be more of a partnership with the U.S. government.".....
"On Wednesday the governor told reporters that Washington has "shifted the funding from the federal government and said, 'Hey, you state, we want to cut down on our deficit. So you pick up the difference. . . .' And it will cost us $3 billion more."

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-cap25-2010mar25,0,3079004.column

That is the cost to 1 state. Now you know why so many states have all ready sued to stop the plan.
Oh! Because now they're giving the states the responsibility they've been bitching about since Clinton? They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want federal funding, accept more control from a federal level. If they DON'T want federal funding, then don't ***** when they end up paying more.

NOBODY realizes how important the federal government is to this country.
 
Oh! Because now they're giving the states the responsibility they've been bitching about since Clinton? They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want federal funding, accept more control from a federal level. If they DON'T want federal funding, then don't ***** when they end up paying more.

NOBODY realizes how important the federal government is to this country.
That's 1 of the problems, you libs want the Fed. Govt. to be the do all be all entity. Insurance has been regulated by the States, just another example of a power grab by the Federal level. As far as taxes you are assuming that just because someone has high income they won't "miss" the greater % of income. There may be some @ the Buffet/Gates level but you are making a huge assumtion on most everyone else. Quite a few high income types have gone under in the current economy & could have used the overage siphoned off by the Govt.
 
That's 1 of the problems, you libs want the Fed. Govt. to be the do all be all entity. Insurance has been regulated by the States, just another example of a power grab by the Federal level. As far as taxes you are assuming that just because someone has high income they won't "miss" the greater % of income. There may be some @ the Buffet/Gates level but you are making a huge assumtion on most everyone else. Quite a few high income types have gone under in the current economy & could have used the overage siphoned off by the Govt.
Get rid of the income tax cap, that would increase the U.S's earnings by substantial amount. And those who make enough money to lose more than half of their earnings to the income tax are most likely already obscenely rich and earn far more money than they spend.
 
Last edited:
Oh! Because now they're giving the states the responsibility they've been bitching about since Clinton? They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want federal funding, accept more control from a federal level. If they DON'T want federal funding, then don't ***** when they end up paying more.

NOBODY realizes how important the federal government is to this country.

No they are not giving the states the responsibility. The Health Bill tells the states what they will pay. The state governments were not represented in the Federal government passed Health Care bill.

Ever heard the term "No Taxation without representation" ?

"NOBODY realizes how important the federal government is to this country."

But everyone realizes how self important the Federal politicians think they are.
 
No they are not giving the states the responsibility. The Health Bill tells the states what they will pay. The state governments were not represented in the Federal government passed Health Care bill.

Ever heard the term "No Taxation without representation" ?
You're right, the states' government didn't have any representation, but that's because this is a government OF THE PEOPLE. Not OF THE GOVERNMENT of the people. There's a reason we elect our representatives directly, instead of having them be chosen by others at the state level. It's AMAZING how selective your reading can be when you put your mind to it, Chukpike.



That's 1 of the problems, you libs want the Fed. Govt. to be the do all be all entity. Insurance has been regulated by the States, just another example of a power grab by the Federal level. As far as taxes you are assuming that just because someone has high income they won't "miss" the greater % of income. There may be some @ the Buffet/Gates level but you are making a huge assumtion on most everyone else. Quite a few high income types have gone under in the current economy & could have used the overage siphoned off by the Govt.
Insurance has been regulated by the states from state to state. But not BETWEEN states. That's not allowed. Because we tried stuff like that once. We ended up with the Articles of Confederation, which basically made each state their own little country. It didn't turn out well, by the way.

I am just assuming, but since I pay taxes, I think I have some say in how everyone is taxed. But as far as the "lower upper class" is concerned, I dare say they've fared these economic hardships better than most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top