Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't understand how we can insure an additional 40mm for less money. I also don't understand how giving 200 of the biggest employer waivers doesn't alter the alleged cost savings. I also don't understand how the entire HCR system doesn't collapse if the mandates are unconstitutional. I also don't understand how anyone reads Esra without laughing.

here's the one part I understand- we used to have to report to the IRS any SERVICE providers who we send more than $600. Now HRC has extended that to GOODS providers. ignore the burden on small business staff- not even trying to go there-

the reason for the new requirement is that it will generate 20 billion in new tax revenues from people who otherwise would have cheated. it's complete fantasy- maybe it'll generate $1 maybe $20M maybe $1 T- but it's all made up.

now 20 b is small in the picture so one might brush it aside, but ask yourself, "why would they make up something that is bullshit on its face to cover $20B if all the rest is real world dollars?

Ty can cite bloggers till his kid is capable of doing his own homework but unless someone can explain the above any thinking person has to believe the entire math to support this bill's "savings" was invented from whole cloth to justify the result.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Run them with Medicare's numbers adjusted for 9.5% unemployment (attendant reduction in Medicare taxes) through 2013, 8.0 from 2013 through 2016, and 7.0 from 2016 through 2020. Also, run them with the 3.8% increase in unearned income tax adjusted to assume 1/3 fewer individuals paying it. See where those numbers come out.

Do you know the CBO will run numbers like this at the request of a member? Why do the think the Republicans haven't asked for such a projection?

My own suspicion is that such a projection would show such an enormous deficit in general, disregarding the Affordable Care Act, that it would make a strong case against any tax cuts, and, indeed, would almost necessitate finding some revenue somewhere. The ACA would be a relatively modest worry compared to the imbalance that would produce in Social Security and in the general accounts.

Yes, at some point, if you project bad economic numbers, the revenue raising elements of the bill raise less money and the expenditure side of the bill costs more. But if you project a 15 year recession, I think you're projecting us being all around generally screwed, unless someone can gin up a world war or something.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

here's the one part I understand- we used to have to report to the IRS any SERVICE providers who we send more than $600. Now HRC has extended that to GOODS providers. ignore the burden on small business staff- not even trying to go there-

the reason for the new requirement is that it will generate 20 billion in new tax revenues from people who otherwise would have cheated. it's complete fantasy- maybe it'll generate $1 maybe $20M maybe $1 T- but it's all made up.

now 20 b is small in the picture so one might brush it aside, but ask yourself, "why would they make up something that is bullshit on its face to cover $20B if all the rest is real world dollars?

Ty can cite bloggers till his kid is capable of doing his own homework but unless someone can explain the above any thinking person has to believe the entire math to support this bill's "savings" was invented from whole cloth to justify the result.

I always rely on trolling patent lawyers rather than economists for these things. Chalk up another win!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I always rely on trolling patent lawyers rather than economists for these things. Chalk up another win!

I'm sure you'll be in high level meetings with really important people soon. Please ask one of them my question?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm sure you'll be in high level meetings with really important people soon. Please ask one of them my question?

We have a whole government agency devoted to collecting taxes. Why do you completely discount the notion that they might have some relevant expertise?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have a whole government agency devoted to collecting taxes. Why do you completely discount the notion that they might have some relevant expertise?

government expertise? HA!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

government expertise? HA!

Shhh! Hank served in the government. You might hurt his feelings.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So the Rs are now looking to entirely repeal Financial Reform - while they're at it, why not repeal the one act that really did squelch job creation: SOx.

That one screwed up access to the public markets for new tech companies something wicked. But I guess the fact that it was signed by one of theirs means we aren't going to consider it, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have a whole government agency devoted to collecting taxes. Why do you completely discount the notion that they might have some relevant expertise?

and the record company supposedly had expertise in finding commercially viable new wave bands. what happened to it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I always rely on trolling patent lawyers rather than economists for these things. Chalk up another win!

I try to fit in "invented from whole cloth" whenever I can.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I always rely on trolling patent lawyers rather than economists for these things. Chalk up another win!

I don't usually respond twice to thoughtful posts, let alone the dull-normal ones, but here goes:

Translation: I have faith that the numbers must be true, because I have faith in the people who created them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry, but what does HCR change about this?

That's not the point. The point is, the revenue expected to pay for the portions of HCReform not covered by medicare cuts is grossly underestimated. What makes up the shortfall? Borrowing.

Yes, it would be the case that we see a drop in Medicare tax revenues HCReform or no HCReform. However, HCReform puts 20-40 million new bodies on subsidized care that were not there before. That's adding a new cost on top.

Worst timed bill in history.

ETA: And see Bernanke's comments re: unemployment staying where it is for 3-5 more years. The pool of subsidized consumers of HC explodes while the revenue expected is off by 5-10%.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

government expertise? HA!

Funny, that wasn't your view when Bush's government was going to bring democracy to the Middle East at the barrel of a gun.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Funny, that wasn't your view when Bush's government was going to bring democracy to the Middle East at the barrel of a gun.

The military is excluded from this. Also excluded are selected offices of the DOJ (e.g., SD NY).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So the Rs are now looking to entirely repeal Financial Reform - while they're at it, why not repeal the one act that really did squelch job creation: SOx.

That one screwed up access to the public markets for new tech companies something wicked. But I guess the fact that it was signed by one of theirs means we aren't going to consider it, right?

And where's the repeal of Medicare Part D? Why aren't the fucking Dems slamming the GOP with that? Goddamnit. WTF is the matter with that party? Is there ever a better time to have that conversation and stick this bullshit "We're the part of austerity, and you're the liberal spendthrifts!" argument the GOP's ass? I mean-- Fucking come on. If the Dems don't grow a set of balls on this issue... I don't even know how to finish this. It's fucking infuriating. Imagine what Chinese govt officials monitoring their bond holdings must think.

"What are they doing?"

"Reading their Constitution."

"Anything else?"

"Holding a symbolic vote to overturn Health Care reform."

"What govt spending is being cut?"

"100 billion, says the GOP."

"From where?"

"Won't say-- Oh, wait. That was a week ago. Now it's 50 billion."

"From where?"

"Oh, I was wrong. 25 billion."

"From where?"

"Maybe they'll tell us when they're done reading the Constitution."