Wells Hall Off Topic Board

"C) Who pays would depend on how the law is written - it could be a payroll tax, it could be spread out progressively in income and corporate taxes, it could include sin taxes, etc. I never said it was free, only that it's less costly to businesses than the current system."

Wait - You sound just like Obama and all over the place here on how this will be funded and cheaper. $940B or S1.7T. I thought you said businesses would pay less? Individuals would pay less? Suddenly you talk more payroll, income, and corporate taxes (Earth to Muldoon - business simply passes those costs down to the customer).

The only proven way in our great country to reduce costs and increase better products and services is opening up to competition (Insurance companies sell nationally, limit patent time, tort reform, etc.) and not burdening the consumer with more taxes and a ridiculous, massive, immobile, inflexible Federal bureaucracy that is completely out of control (See GSA Vegas Bash). You are insane if you think a bunch of over-paid, private sector flunkies who just can not wait until 4:59 PM with zero motivation to do anything better, faster, more efficient will actually save us money? Really?

As Pelosi told us, "you have to pass it to understand what is in it." Um. No thanks.

Is the goal to slow job loss or stimulate growth. Even the cbo says obama's budgets will help a little in the short term but create a drag on growth a few years out. If we just want jobs lets move to a full communistic govt system. Everyone will have a job but no one will have success or economic growth.

Honestly. What do you do for a living?

Damn right it is math. It is still business. Somebody has to pay for it. You are so vague and make zero sense on concrete answers. Very Obama-esque. Feeling good does not solve real problems - and as we see with Obamacare - we have created a fiscal nightmare - even you can't give me a straight answer on how it is going to be funded - but you support it? What kind of results will we see and how will it impact our current products and services we receive?

Damn right I am angry- it is people your ignorance and Executive Branch-sponsored irresponsibility, unaccountability and a growing massive dependent/entitled class looking to corrupt, irresponsible 9-5 only bureaucrats - that really dont care about you and your family - just itching for 5PM and slide down the dinosaur tale as fast as they can - to run 20% of our GDP. That is nuts.

You support Obamacare, right? Why has the price tag - sold by Obama @ $940B and supposed to cut costs exploded to currently $1.7 TRILLION according to the CBO? Do you think the President was telling the truth initially? CBO says it will cost 2X as much. Do you THINK Obama was selling us on price? of course. If he was in the Private Sector and lying to customers like that, he would have been fired.

Final question: If Obamacare is so cheap and will save everyone money - Why is it that 800+ Companies, Unions and other Groups - over 3 million Workers are now exempt From Obamacare - many BIG Obama contributors? They know something.

And you vote, too? My Lord.

I know... the facts are just not that exciting.

I already told you that I'm not a big fan of the health care law. If you're going to forget things we've discussed, this conversation will only get dumber.

The reason I'm not a fan is that gets small concessions from the health insurance industry while giving them millions of new customers; it's a sell-out. When people like you hear about bad polling for that law, you should remember that many of the people who oppose it are like me - disappointed that President Obama started with a wet-noodle plan and compromised it into the big business giveaway that it turned out to be. It does a few good things, though, and if it eventually leads to single-payer, I'll be more charitable in my opinion of it. While you're complaining about it, you might want to consider that it has roots in conservative circles.

You're obviously a true believer who wants to be angry at the other side. I have a hunch that if we had single-payer health care, if the tax increase you paid was more than offset by your health insurance savings, and if your care was as good or better than it is now, you'd still bitch.

And yes, I vote. What I don't do is put myself in a state of perpetual outrage when my candidate loses, because anger only makes you more gullible.

The stated goal was to minimize job loss I think.

As I've said multiple times in this thread, deficit spending cannot "fix" the economy, nor can it "jump start" economic recovery....it's simply artificial demand that protects some of your citizens from unemployment or the effects of unemployment.

so lars is all in for austerity that will lose even more of the middle class.

Remeber folks this is the same guy who used to hire prople whose spouses had health care coverage so he didn't have to pony up..

lars wants whats good for lars and if you are fortunate enough to get on board so be it. If not as long as lars keeps his tax cuts and maybe gets more its okay.

What does Mittens want to do? Increase military spending. In the face of this deficit lars keeps babbling about?

Sure...it would, but you can't always do that quickly.

As I said earlier in the thread run deficits, and where you can apply that spending to project that improve your economic efficiency.

In the mean time start slashing regulations and engage in bipartisan national confidence building (difficult in today's environment)...and by the way don't squander your mandate on a revamping health care.

I'm intentionally ignoring your repeated communism jibes....deficit spending does not equal a centrally planned economy.

You're right about McCain. But don't start with how the stimulus prevented 15% unemployment. That's complete BS and you know it.

Not much....I'll let you know...later.

I have a serious answer, but no time to type....maybe tomorrow in the airport!

Bull

You've argued that pumping $1.5T into the economy for three straight years had no effect on employment.

Presumably that means that removing some large amount of money from the economy each year would also have no effect on employment?

This in turn would imply that paying the interest, or repaying the principal on the nations debt will not be a drag on the future economy.

Taken to its logical conclusion your position that there was no benefit to deficit spending devalues the cost of paying it back.