Show me a Republican in the past 30 years that hasn't been for "buying a bunch of stuff." Republicans are very much for buying stuff, they're just not for paying it.
True But it does give us a glimpse into the mindset of republicans in 2010. Would that democrats had more of that mindset. We might have the public option and stronger wall street reform. As it is we can barely hold our caucus together and back our own president.
You want me to prove the where taxes come from affects the economy? Alright how about if every tax came directly from oil purchases. So oil would cost like 300 bucks a gallon (pulling that nobody out of my butt). Do you think that would have an affect on the economy? Ron Paul (I'm not a libertarian) Maybe. The government not working and not passing stuff would benefit a small government guy like me more then a big government guy. Although I guess the government can't shrink if it is not working either. I am no history buff but my understanding is this is the way the Senate originally worked in the countries founding. At least until that schmuck Henry Clay came around with his so called "compromises"
I ask you for proof, and your "proof" is an underdeveloped hypothetical situation with numbers "pulled out of your butt"?
You are asking for proof that where taxes come from affects an economy? If all our federal money came form taxes on oil and coal then any energy-consuming company would do business else where since those are the most efficient forms of energy (thus less jobs;thus changing our economy).
What is it you think businesses are doing when they are figuring out where to set up shop? They are, amongst other things, calculating how much in taxes they would have to pay at each location (city, state, country).
I asked for proof and rather than give me some numbers to show what has happened historically as tax rates have changed, you throw out an absurd hypothetical scenario in which one product is taxed at a 2000% rate. That's not proof.
Lets say hypothetically, I showed that as the income tax rate went down in the 60s (I have no idea if it did) the private sector grew. You would just claim it was some other cause that made the private sector grow and then you would b**** and moan for more proof. Its a dumb debate and it would go nowhere (and it's off topic) that's why I wrote originally "Agree to disagree". I am not sure why my hypothetical scenario doesn't work for you. It's quite simple and clear (that doesn't mean correct).
If you need more tangible proof of where you get taxes from affecting in economy look up the Hawley Smoot Tarrif Act
So let's examine the plan: •Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. I know the Republicans love huge entitlement programs, look no further than Medicare Part D in 2003, but this is just absurd. I appreciate the fact he wants insurance to be private and not through your employer, we can do this with a national exchange instead of state exchanges and then institute a mandate. Which I see is missing from his points and without one would completely negate the usefulness of any healthcare reform. You're not addressing what's making those premiums rise by double digits. I guess we're just going to increase these tax credits by that same %? Wonderful this thing will outstrip defense spending in about a decade. •Provides transparency in health care price and quality data, making this critical information readily available before someone needs health services. Uh rhetoric much? WTF does that even mean? •Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions. Already in the current legislation. •Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all. Already in the current legislation. •Addresses health care’s growing strain on small businesses, by allowing them to pool together nationally to offer coverage to their employees. This already exists and has been going on for decades. But why would companies need to offer insurance if under his plan we're all buying private policies with that tax credit? •Encourages the adoption of health information technology and assists states in establishing solutions to medical malpractice litigation. More pointless rhetoric. You're going to encourage? How by saying pretty please? The stimulus includes funds for the adoption, that is part of that allocated money that is yet to be spent. Many states already have medical malpractice legislation in place. But according to a lot of ignorant people tort reform would magically solve everything, though the CBO has already written their report and shown it would create a .2% decrease in costs. This is most terrible plan I've heard yet. Any plan without a mandate fundamentally will not work. Anyone who actually understands how insurance works will attest to that.
I watched a documentary the other night about "The Creative Coalition." One of the guys made a small but significant point that made total sense to me. To what extent it made/makes a difference is up for debate. He blamed closed captioning coming to the House and Senate chambers as diluting/removing the passion out of political debate by those who legislate us. He made his point by citing Robert Byrd's impassioned plea against involvement in Iraq being made to a virtually empty Senate chamber with some junior staffer paying half attention to a CCTV back in the office and delivering a watered-down version of the speech to his boss and ultimatelly someone reported it to the actual Senator. Let's keep 'em in the Chamber and away from special interest groups!! :grin:
But that was a tax increase - not simply replacing one source with another. To your oil example, if I pay more for gas but save the exact same amount in income taxes, does it change my behavior? Yes - in that I probably would do fewer things that require lots of gas, but then I would increase other things that require less gas. There will always be winners and losers to any tax shift, but whether there's a net boost or drawback to the overall economy is far less clear and depends on the specifics of the tax policy change.
I'm going to assume that you have a job that gives you health coverage and that if you have a family, rather than living at home with your parents, or going to college and being on your parents' health insurance, that you have health coverage for your family. If my assumption is true, you better hope that you never lose that job after you've acquired a medical problem falling under pre-existing conditions. That no one in your family develops a medical problem that would be a pre-existing condition, because if that happens in the future and the President's healthcare reform didn't exist, or was repealed, you would be up **** creek without a paddle, dude. There are currently over twenty million Americans without health insurance. You would fall into that group, the vast majority of whom are hard working and have a job, but either a job that doesn't provide healthcare, or they have a pre-existing condition that won't allow them to get healthcare through their job. That could be you, but that sort of problem happens to everyone else, correct? It could never happen to you. That simply is unthinkable. It wouldn't be fair.
I am not dumb enough to put my family at such a risk? If this possibility existed in my contract with my current insurance company through my employer then I would get rid of it and find one outside of my company. Trying to pass laws that prevent me from making mistakes that affect me and my family is not the federal government's purpose. I thought all you guys for ending the drug war and legalizing mar1juana agreed with this principal.
We would have no oil and gas industry because no oil and gas company would come here when they can be in South America or China. That would be devastating for our economy. As I stated earlier when any company is deciding where to locate themselves, one of the biggest things they take into consideration is how much they will be taxed at each location. So clearly taxation as a huge affect on how many and which type of businesses are in a given location. I believe you would respond by saying (sorry for putting words in your mouth; trying to save time) "but who cares what type of businesses are in a location. business is business" to which I would say if we taxed all energy except bio-diesel fuels (because lets say we really believed bio-diesel had promise) and based our whole economy in bio-diesel, what's gonna happen when bio-diesel sucks and nobody wants it? What companies you base your economy in has an affect on your overall economy.
Is that an insult. Personally I found her to be a smart,interesting lady. Anyways Rand wouldn't have as many typos as me.
