“The money does not belong to the beneficiaries of the payments and programs; it belongs to those who earned it. Any deficits are not a result of tax cuts; they are a result of the New Deal / Great Society wasteful spending that tries to justify taking earnings from one group to transfer to another as benefit ”

Patently false conservo whining. NO matter how they slice it, they cannot get around the fact that tax cuts are invariably and ALWAYS followed by an economic meltdown or economic stagnation, because the basic assertions about what people will DO with their tax cuts has always sounded good, but is always false. Lower the top marginal tax rates and a business owner is going to suck money OUT of his business for personal use. The idea that if you give a person a tax cut on personal income, they will take that money and start a business is basically false. The tax cuts the middle class would get are never large enough for this and on those at the top end, the only way they avoid being taxed when the top rates are high is by LEAVING their money inside of the business, and using it in ways in which the rate of taxation becomes ZERO. So instead of taking 100,000 dollars out of a business and personal income and seeing it be taxed into 30,000, they leave it INSIDE the business and only take out what they need, and only to the point where they are taxed in the LOWER brackets. They still have a huge amount of wealth, its just in a form that cannot be used to buy a personal yacht. But by leaving that money INSIDE of a business, they retain 100 percent of its value as long as they use it in ways that create wealth not profit.

Lowering the top tax rates results in money being sucked out of a going concern where it then goes chasing after high yield investments which results in a speculative market. This has occurred as an immediate response to every INCOME tax cut since the creation of the tax in 1913. The tax cuts of the 1920’s led to the great depression. The Reagan Tax cuts led to the crash of the late 1980’s, the Bush Tax cuts led to the current mess, because those wealthy who got the lions share of the tax cuts did NOT go out and start new businesses, they started investing in credit default swaps and bundled mortgages to get regular monthly income without the muss and fuss of actual property ownership. Why did banks start offering easier and easier mortgages? Because a lot of wealthy people who had even MORE money were demanding new places to put that money and get a better than savings account level of annual interest on it.

Good question considering its obvious she didn’t do a very good job of controlling it in the first place.

Take the easy way out of the delimma, just kill it.

Ok, so you WOULD force a woman to carry a pregnancy – which she does not want – to full term. In other words, YOU want control of HER body.

July 23rd, 2009
9:03 am

Look for a blitz of public health announcements promoting healthy lifestyles, with or without the comprehensive plan.

July 23rd, 2009
8:14 am

Think that might be why sentiment has changed? We have something, altho many not fully satisfied, but scared of the unknown? Plus the legislation being considered is inadequate.

Actually, our government is borrowing the money to continue funding the transfer payments and programs that those confiscated earnings (taxes) were covering. The money does not belong to the beneficiaries of the payments and programs; it belongs to those who earned it. Any deficits are not a result of tax cuts; they are a result of the New Deal / Great Society wasteful spending that tries to justify taking earnings from one group to transfer to another as benefit (in exchange for votes).

I agree we need to address our deficits and we should do it by cutting the redistributionist schemes that do for beneficiaries what they can and should do for themselves.

-SD

huh? SD, you still jabbering on?
Go blogwh0re somewhere else, you whiny old coot.

Translation: I don’t really remember so I’ll spout *my* interpretation of what you said like it’s an actual quote.

Truthiness in action.

“That’s mostly correct … A comprehensive healthcare plan would encourage such behavior.”

That might be the most laughably asinine post in the near 400 within this thread! A “comprehensive healthcare plan” will do nothing to make people who gorge on junk food, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol in excess, and fail to exercise follow better lifestyle habits. Having no plan should be one of the greatest motivating factors for individuals to practice some or all of these steps because it would be the best way that they could act in a preventative manner for themselves and their families.

However, -here- is what a “comprehensive health plan” will do for those in this group:

-It will probably pay for obesity prevention programs or dieticians consultancies or (probably) free food programs that the beneficiaries will either not show up for or not follow their advice or simply throw away as it goes bad in their refrigerator since they refuse to eat it.
-It will probably pay for smoking cessation and alcohol / substance abuse programs that beneficiaries will not attend and / or not follow.
-It will probably pay for gym memberships and -likely- exercise equipment purchases that will go unused since -if- these individuals wanted to exercise, most could walk outside their home and walk / run along any number of miles of sidewalks and trails.

In the end, this boondoggle will have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that the beneficiaries do not follow only to have them showing up at doctor’s offices (spending more taxpayer dollars) to get services and prescriptions (spending more taxpayer dollars) for the health problems that are a direct result of their own decisions and choices.

I have a beter solution.

How about instead of passing legislation that obligates our children and grandchildren to fund what will be a wasteful economic drain, we allow PrezBO and the liberals to go to work now “removing waste” and “consolidating services to decrease cost”. For every dollar that you save (defined as a dollar less spent this year than we spent on health care last year), you are free to redirect that dollar to fund whatever socialist, single-payer government solution that you choose. Since PrezBO and the PrezBOts promise that it will “not increase deficits” and they will “pay” for the reform entirely through things like “waste prevention” and “efficiency”, then I suggest they begin now and redirect all of their “savings” to fund their program in a pay-as-you-go.

My suspicion is that the liberal response will be “no” – evidencing that liberals know the spin and blather is nothing but lies and obfuscation.

-SD

I’d not trust those numbers as far as I could throw ManTeats Limbaugh.