Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Wow. I thought Obama's head was going to explode when asked to throw out the bill and start over.

Pelosi has the ball now, starting deep on her side of the field and so far has just rambled.

Alexander had a good opening...

I just can't stand when they say we can't start over we need to do this right now... The original bill didn't go into effect until 2014, and Obama's doesn't go into effect until 2018. They can spend a few months and redo it if its going in that late.

The problem with starting over is that this bill is the starting point for so many other policy decisions in other areas.

For example, and I use this example because its what I know, there is so many tax policy drivers in the health care bill. Tax policy decisions need to be made and they cannot be made until this bill moves or dies. Its a domino.

danefan wrote:The problem with starting over is that this bill is the starting point for so many other policy decisions in other areas.

For example, and I use this example because its what I know, there is so many tax policy drivers in the health care bill. Tax policy decisions need to be made and they cannot be made until this bill moves or dies. Its a domino.

Well that is the consequence for having the tax policy so intertwined in the healthcare bill. 5 months ago they could of scrapped it and started working together and could be closer to passing a bill that possibly people would like.

dgreco wrote:

danefan wrote:The problem with starting over is that this bill is the starting point for so many other policy decisions in other areas.

For example, and I use this example because its what I know, there is so many tax policy drivers in the health care bill. Tax policy decisions need to be made and they cannot be made until this bill moves or dies. Its a domino.

Well that is the consequence for having the tax policy so intertwined in the healthcare bill. 5 months ago they could of scrapped it and started working together and could be closer to passing a bill that possibly people would like.

They have to pay for it somehow. The same would be the case with any other expensive legislation.

danefan wrote:

dgreco wrote:
Well that is the consequence for having the tax policy so intertwined in the healthcare bill. 5 months ago they could of scrapped it and started working together and could be closer to passing a bill that possibly people would like.

They have to pay for it somehow. The same would be the case with any other expensive legislation.

Well if they want to reform the entire system it can be payed by the people, only the subsidized will need a way for it to be paid, which would be a tax, but in theory if we are fixing the excess problems then we will not need the extra tax laws. I am sure they can do minor changes to FICA taxes to make up for some of it and thats not major changes in tax policy. Also, why not put limits on things like welfare, section 8, FIP, and get rid of EIC etc... that will pay for the extra people. We never hear that those programs are close to running out, but SS has been running out forever---even though people payed into it to get that money back.

You work in tax I assume, and I hope, you cannot support things like EIC that give someone who made 7,000 and paid no taxes, has section 8 and welfare and still receives a refund of 6,000+. It is insane, take away just EIC and you can subsidize a large protion of those who cannot afford healthcare.

danefan wrote:

dgreco wrote:
Well that is the consequence for having the tax policy so intertwined in the healthcare bill. 5 months ago they could of scrapped it and started working together and could be closer to passing a bill that possibly people would like.

They have to pay for it somehow. The same would be the case with any other expensive legislation.

But if those decisions are delayed 3-6 months, then they still get made and tax policy decisions will be made along with them. There's nothing magical about getting something done today versus getting done June - tax policy that gets decided then is just as effective as what gets decided now. The only thing that does pop up is the political one and the proximity of the mid term elections. But even that shouldn't stand in the way of getting it right.

dgreco wrote:

danefan wrote:
They have to pay for it somehow. The same would be the case with any other expensive legislation.

Well if they want to reform the entire system it can be payed by the people, only the subsidized will need a way for it to be paid, which would be a tax, but in theory if we are fixing the excess problems then we will not need the extra tax laws. I am sure they can do minor changes to FICA taxes to make up for some of it and thats not major changes in tax policy. Also, why not put limits on things like welfare, section 8, FIP, and get rid of EIC etc... that will pay for the extra people. We never hear that those programs are close to running out, but SS has been running out forever---even though people payed into it to get that money back.

You work in tax I assume, and I hope, you cannot support things like EIC that give someone who made 7,000 and paid no taxes, has section 8 and welfare and still receives a refund of 6,000+. It is insane, take away just EIC and you can subsidize a large protion of those who cannot afford healthcare.

Believe me I don't agree with the EIC as it currenlty operates.

Here are the major taxes (tax policy issues) that were originally proposed in the House version of the Healthcare Bill (HR 3962) so you can get an idea of where they are looking to get the money to pay for this:

Tax --> CBO's expected 10 year revenue raised
- 5.4% Surtax (AGI > $1million/$500k) --> $461 billion
- Repeal "Black Liquor" Credit (black liquor is a biproduct of the paper manufacturing process) --> $24 b
- Excise tax on the sale of medical devices --> $20 b
- Information reporting on corporations --> $17 b
- Limit Health FSA's to $2500 in cafeteria plans --> $13 b
- Limit treaty benefits --> $8 b
- Repeal worldwide interest allocation (corporate deduction loop hole) --> $6 b
- Codify ecnomic substance doctrine (IRS enforcement mechanism) --> $6 b
- Eliminate Medicare Part D subsidy deduction --> $2 b


I've got an analysis done on the Senate version too if anyone is interested.

danefan wrote:

dgreco wrote:
Well if they want to reform the entire system it can be payed by the people, only the subsidized will need a way for it to be paid, which would be a tax, but in theory if we are fixing the excess problems then we will not need the extra tax laws. I am sure they can do minor changes to FICA taxes to make up for some of it and thats not major changes in tax policy. Also, why not put limits on things like welfare, section 8, FIP, and get rid of EIC etc... that will pay for the extra people. We never hear that those programs are close to running out, but SS has been running out forever---even though people payed into it to get that money back.

You work in tax I assume, and I hope, you cannot support things like EIC that give someone who made 7,000 and paid no taxes, has section 8 and welfare and still receives a refund of 6,000+. It is insane, take away just EIC and you can subsidize a large protion of those who cannot afford healthcare.

Believe me I don't agree with the EIC as it currenlty operates.

Here are the major taxes (tax policy issues) that were originally proposed in the House version of the Healthcare Bill (HR 3962) so you can get an idea of where they are looking to get the money to pay for this:

Tax --> CBO's expected 10 year revenue raised
- 5.4% Surtax (AGI > $1million/$500k) --> $461 billion
- Repeal "Black Liquor" Credit (black liquor is a biproduct of the paper manufacturing process) --> $24 b
- Excise tax on the sale of medical devices --> $20 b
- Information reporting on corporations --> $17 b
- Limit Health FSA's to $2500 in cafeteria plans --> $13 b
- Limit treaty benefits --> $8 b
- Repeal worldwide interest allocation (corporate deduction loop hole) --> $6 b
- Codify ecnomic substance doctrine (IRS enforcement mechanism) --> $6 b
- Eliminate Medicare Part D subsidy deduction --> $2 b


I've got an analysis done on the Senate version too if anyone is interested.

I do not have a problem with many of them, but like GF said, starting over will effect all of those? They can rewrite them in if they all agree about them and if not in the original they can be added as amendments, no?

dgreco wrote:

danefan wrote:
Believe me I don't agree with the EIC as it currenlty operates.

Here are the major taxes (tax policy issues) that were originally proposed in the House version of the Healthcare Bill (HR 3962) so you can get an idea of where they are looking to get the money to pay for this:

Tax --> CBO's expected 10 year revenue raised
- 5.4% Surtax (AGI > $1million/$500k) --> $461 billion
- Repeal "Black Liquor" Credit (black liquor is a biproduct of the paper manufacturing process) --> $24 b
- Excise tax on the sale of medical devices --> $20 b
- Information reporting on corporations --> $17 b
- Limit Health FSA's to $2500 in cafeteria plans --> $13 b
- Limit treaty benefits --> $8 b
- Repeal worldwide interest allocation (corporate deduction loop hole) --> $6 b
- Codify ecnomic substance doctrine (IRS enforcement mechanism) --> $6 b
- Eliminate Medicare Part D subsidy deduction --> $2 b


I've got an analysis done on the Senate version too if anyone is interested.

I do not have a problem with many of them, but like GF said, starting over will effect all of those? They can rewrite them in if they all agree about them and if not in the original they can be added as amendments, no?

These are just the tax policies that are directly effected. These policies however drive other tax policies, especially on the foreign corporate operations side.

Starting over isn't going to kill any tax policy, but its a huge pain in the ass for everyone (Treasury and Taxpayers) to be out in limbo for 6 or 8 more months.

But maybe, if the bill is that bad its worth it.

Why did the Republicans even bother to show up. Everytime they present an idea, the Dems counter that their bill already does that...along with a personal sob story.

Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Perhaps someone should have convened a summit before we voted on those as well.

BTW, it's still the 1st half, but the Republican strategy of ball control and shortening the game appear to be working.

The Dem's are getting out-physicalled as usual.

Score?

kalm wrote:Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Perhaps someone should have convened a summit before we voted on those as well.

BTW, it's still the 1st half, but the Republican strategy of ball control and shortening the game appear to be working.

The Dem's are getting out-physicalled as usual.

Score?

Politicians 1
American People 0

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Perhaps someone should have convened a summit before we voted on those as well.

BTW, it's still the 1st half, but the Republican strategy of ball control and shortening the game appear to be working.

The Dem's are getting out-physicalled as usual.

Score?

Politicians 1
American People 0

Thanks.

Can we blame it on the refs, injuries?

kalm wrote:Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Does anyone on this board know where we can find facts in regards to whether cutting taxes actually decreases revenues to the government? I still find it hard to believe the cutting of taxes worked for Reagan, but it didn't work for Bush.

I ask, because you see what happens to the states that raise taxes on the wealthy. They move. While I know I am comparing state to federal here, the premise is still the same.

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Does anyone on this board know where we can find facts in regards to whether cutting taxes actually decreases revenues to the government? I still find it hard to believe the cutting of taxes worked for Reagan, but it didn't work for Bush.

I ask, because you see what happens to the states that raise taxes on the wealthy. They move. While I know I am comparing state to federal here, the premise is still the same.

Good luck finding those "facts". You are guaranteed to find economists on both sides of that argument.

The premise of comparing states to federal isn't really the same though. People are willing to move from NY to Florida (very common). Very few people are willing to move from the US to Mexico.

danefan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Does anyone on this board know where we can find facts in regards to whether cutting taxes actually decreases revenues to the government? I still find it hard to believe the cutting of taxes worked for Reagan, but it didn't work for Bush.

I ask, because you see what happens to the states that raise taxes on the wealthy. They move. While I know I am comparing state to federal here, the premise is still the same.

Good luck finding those "facts". You are guaranteed to find economists on both sides of that argument.

The premise of comparing states to federal isn't really the same though. People are willing to move from NY to Florida (very common). Very few people are willing to move from the US to Mexico.

That's what I thought. So why the hell do we listen to economists then? Especially if they cannot definitively point out an optimal tax rate.

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:Speaking of taxes, if Bush hadn't cut them, we'd be in much better shape right now to afford healthcare. Throw the 700 billion we've spent in Iraq and we're in even better shape.

Does anyone on this board know where we can find facts in regards to whether cutting taxes actually decreases revenues to the government? I still find it hard to believe the cutting of taxes worked for Reagan, but it didn't work for Bush.

I ask, because you see what happens to the states that raise taxes on the wealthy. They move. While I know I am comparing state to federal here, the premise is still the same.

In 2000', Clinton's last yr, the fed collected 2.025 trillion in revenue.
In 2008', Bush's last yr the fed collected 2.524 trillion in revenue. (which was slightly less than in 07')
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/down ... =c&local=s

danefan wrote:......

They have to pay for it somehow. The same would be the case with any other expensive legislation.

Can't be that expensive....it's "deficit neutral".

BDKJMU wrote:In 2000', Clinton's last yr, the fed collected 2.025 trillion in revenue.
In 2008', Bush's last yr the fed collected 2.524 trillion in revenue. (which was slightly less than in 07')
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/down ... =c&local=s

That can't be right. That would make Republicans correct.

Poor Obama. He was the only Democrat who had anything of substance to add. Made him look cranky.

The Republicans looked much more prepared than the Dems, minus Obama.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:In 2000', Clinton's last yr, the fed collected 2.025 trillion in revenue.
In 2008', Bush's last yr the fed collected 2.524 trillion in revenue. (which was slightly less than in 07')
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/down ... =c&local=s

That can't be right. That would make Republicans correct.

Exactly. From what I can decipher, the first Bush tax cuts took place right before 9/11. We saw what 9/11 did to the economy, not to mention Bush inherited Clinton's recession. The second set was in 2003. Look at that graph climb when the tax cuts were enacted.

Am I missing something?

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Politicians 1
American People 0

Thanks.

Can we blame it on the refs, injuries?

Yes, as long as FACTS are not brought up in any way, shape, or form.

Did Fox News actually interview a band member of the Grateful Dead???? WTF???