Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Obama open to taxing health care benefits

Health Care Taxing benefits 2009

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#61 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:27 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 17 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Obama's administration has spent more money than any other before his in just his first 3 months in office, not counting what was passed before him taking office.

No he hasn't.  Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Open your eyes, man.

Obama's Out of Control Spending Dwarfs the Wasted AIG Bailout Money
http://www.usnews.co...lout-money.html

Obama, Like Bush, Uses Crisis to Expand Presidential Power
http://www.usnews.co...tial-power.html

On Spending:
http://www.politifac...statements/383/

http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=25496

http://finance.yahoo...f-14052346.html

http://www.wbaltv.co...037/detail.html

Name one previous administration who has spent nearly as much as Obama since taking office to the end of March.  No one has spent this much money so quickly.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#62 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:28 PM

View PostLover of Purple, on Mar 17 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

He is considering having Vets use own insurance to pay for their injuries!!!!! I had to search this one since I couldn't believe that any president would even consider such nonsense. But here is an article:

Obama's plan for our wounded soldiers!

I have been trying to give this President a chance, but he keeps making it harder and harder for me. Sheesh, Obama...get a clue.

LoP

You mean this, right?

http://www.exisle.ne...showtopic=57582
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#63 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:29 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Dude, are you even reading what you are saying?

Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.

Two trillion dollars. Heading out the door. Right now. No matter how incompetent Bush may have been, he's never even come close to doing anything on this level.

Am I being unclear?  Bush pissed away 5 trillion.  Net.  Spent.  Gone.  He doesn't work here any more so he's not puting any of it back.

Obama has 2 trillion on its way out, but it hasn't been spent, won't be spent all in one place or at the same time, and will likely be modified over time and at least partially offset with other policies.  "We do not have a complete picture" because it hasn't been spent yet.  He hasn't spent more than Bush because 5 trillion is more than 400 million.  And most of the 400 million spent so far was Bush's anyway.  Yes, he has an awful lot ready to go out the door, but you cannot make a truthful statement that he's spent more than any president ever.  Because that statement would be false.  Even if you add in the 2 trillion he's authorized.  Because 2 trillion is less than 5 trillion.  Your statement may become true one day, if on January 20th of 2013 or 2017 our debt is five trillion higher than it was Jan 20th 2009.  It probably won't even be 2 trillion higher on December 31st of 2009, as President Obama is still working on things.

To summarize:  We don't have a complete picture, but he still hasn't spent more than Bush (or any other president).

#64 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:32 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Dude, are you even reading what you are saying?

Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.

Two trillion dollars. Heading out the door. Right now. No matter how incompetent Bush may have been, he's never even come close to doing anything on this level.

Am I being unclear?  Bush pissed away 5 trillion.  Net.  Spent.  Gone.  He doesn't work here any more so he's not puting any of it back.

Obama has 2 trillion on its way out, but it hasn't been spent, won't be spent all in one place or at the same time, and will likely be modified over time and at least partially offset with other policies.  "We do not have a complete picture" because it hasn't been spent yet.  He hasn't spent more than Bush because 5 trillion is more than 400 million.  And most of the 400 million spent so far was Bush's anyway.  Yes, he has an awful lot ready to go out the door, but you cannot make a truthful statement that he's spent more than any president ever.  Because that statement would be false.  Even if you add in the 2 trillion he's authorized.  Because 2 trillion is less than 5 trillion.  Your statement may become true one day, if on January 20th of 2013 or 2017 our debt is five trillion higher than it was Jan 20th 2009.  It probably won't even be 2 trillion higher on December 31st of 2009, as President Obama is still working on things.



Five trillion in eight years, vs 2 trillion in two months.

nuff said.

Quote

To summarize:  We don't have a complete picture, but he still hasn't spent more than Bush (or any other president).

Given the same time period, he has, as my (revised) post illistrates.

Edited by RobL, 17 March 2009 - 04:33 PM.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#65 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:39 PM

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 17 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

Name one previous administration who has spent nearly as much as Obama since taking office to the end of March.  No one has spent this much money so quickly.

My point is he hasn't spent sh*t yet.  He's just signed off on it.  The money's not out the door yet and we have no idea how fast it's gonna go or how much is coming back.

Now, assuming you mean no president has signed so much spending so quickly, then you're probably right.  Certainly in a straight dollar sense--but I'm not sure if you use different metrics (inflation adjusted, percentage of GDP, etc).  We've had a Civil war and two World Wars that might win out.  I haven't checked if they do.

However to say "he's spent more than any president ever" at the present time remains: FALSE.

#66 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:41 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Bad Wolf said:

He flat out promised he wouldn't ever tax health care benefits. That he now is willing to even CONSIDER it is a direct contradiction to that statement. It proves that what he said in his campaign is completely lacking in any credibility. This is not some minor issue. This was a MAIN point in his campaign. "I will not tax health care benefits." No way around it. Either he was lying then or he is SO spineless that he is willing, this soon into his presidency, to consider this. Period.

Lil

What's with this black-and-white with us or against us mentality?  This is nothing more than a "I'll hear you out."  If, after hearing them out, he comes back with "my answer's still 'no'."  Then what's the problem?

Besides, a president with the ability to change his mind in light of new information rather than stubbornly sticking to the original plan, results be damned, is a good thing, imho.  (with the caveat that, in this case, I don't think he should back down--but it's fine with me that he's at least willing to listen to alternative ideas)

This one IS black and white.  He said he'd never do it and now he's considering it.  If it was an issue on which he anticipated the possibility of changing his mind he shouldn't have said so unequivocally that he wouldn't do it.
Posted Image

#67 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:52 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Five trillion in eight years, vs 2 trillion in two months.

nuff said.

No.  5 trillion (net) spent.  2 trillion (gross) signed into law.

"Net" does not equal "Gross"
and "Spent" does not equal "Signed in to law"

Quote

Quote

To summarize:  We don't have a complete picture, but he still hasn't spent more than Bush (or any other president).

Given the same time period, he has, as my (revised) post illistrates.

He's signed more.  He hasn't spent more.  "Dollars spent" is still TBD.

#68 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:52 PM

Added bang for the gall - Obama distinguished his health overhaul pitch as being different than McCain's in this specific regard (taxing the benefit).  And y'all lauded him for it.

Edited by Nittany Lioness, 17 March 2009 - 04:54 PM.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#69 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:53 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 17 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

Name one previous administration who has spent nearly as much as Obama since taking office to the end of March.  No one has spent this much money so quickly.

My point is he hasn't spent sh*t yet.  He's just signed off on it.  The money's not out the door yet and we have no idea how fast it's gonna go or how much is coming back.

Now, assuming you mean no president has signed so much spending so quickly, then you're probably right.  Certainly in a straight dollar sense--but I'm not sure if you use different metrics (inflation adjusted, percentage of GDP, etc).  We've had a Civil war and two World Wars that might win out.  I haven't checked if they do.

However to say "he's spent more than any president ever" at the present time remains: FALSE.

If he signed off on it, then he owns it. Its his. He could have just as easily gone "uh, no, thanks for playing" to the omnibus and other pork bills. But he didn't, so he owns them outright. And once its signed off on, its gone. Done. Poof.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#70 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:57 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 17 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

Name one previous administration who has spent nearly as much as Obama since taking office to the end of March.  No one has spent this much money so quickly.

My point is he hasn't spent sh*t yet.  He's just signed off on it.  The money's not out the door yet and we have no idea how fast it's gonna go or how much is coming back.

Now, assuming you mean no president has signed so much spending so quickly, then you're probably right.  Certainly in a straight dollar sense--but I'm not sure if you use different metrics (inflation adjusted, percentage of GDP, etc).  We've had a Civil war and two World Wars that might win out.  I haven't checked if they do.

However to say "he's spent more than any president ever" at the present time remains: FALSE.

If he signed off on it, then he owns it. Its his. He could have just as easily gone "uh, no, thanks for playing" to the omnibus and other pork bills. But he didn't, so he owns them outright. And once its signed off on, its gone. Done. Poof.

Not only that, be he considering more down the road.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#71 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:00 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Five trillion in eight years, vs 2 trillion in two months.

nuff said.

No.  5 trillion (net) spent.  2 trillion (gross) signed into law.

"Net" does not equal "Gross"
and "Spent" does not equal "Signed in to law"

And if you think we're getting any of that 2 trill back, you are kidding yourself. Just like all the bailout money - gone. Yeah, some of the states might get some back on sales tax, but I know my whole $8 a month (max) I'm getting out of it won't affect my spending much.

Quote

Quote

Quote

To summarize:  We don't have a complete picture, but he still hasn't spent more than Bush (or any other president).

Given the same time period, he has, as my (revised) post illistrates.

He's signed more.  He hasn't spent more.  "Dollars spent" is still TBD.

Same difference. Its signed, so its not like he can go "uh, yeah, I've changed my mind and want to unsign that spending bill....." He can't. Its as good as gone, dude. Hasta, nice knowing you (or not knowning you, as its going to be debt from China).

Bring back Darthsikle!


#72 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:04 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

If he signed off on it, then he owns it. Its his. He could have just as easily gone "uh, no, thanks for playing" to the omnibus and other pork bills. But he didn't, so he owns them outright. And once its signed off on, its gone. Done. Poof.

FFS . .

The money hasn't been spent yet.  Do you understand what "spent" means?  And he hasn't even attempted to offset it with anything.  Revenue - Spending = Net Spending (and in rare cases, Surplus).

He can cut some other plannned spending, and he can do some things that might increase revenue.  We'll have to wait and see what happens.  Bush's net spending is set in stone and immutable.  Obama's remains undetermined, and only looking at what he's signed so far is incomplete and inaccurate.  It might end up being a whole lot more, or a whole lot less.  But to say he's already done things that haven't yet occured remains incorrect.

#73 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:07 PM

Interesting comparison, but did Bush start his presidency in the middle of a bad recession? :eh:

Surely the situations are simply much too different to compare?

And does it actually make any difference as to "Who's worse, Bush or Obama" when Obama hasn't even finished yet? :eh:

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#74 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:07 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Mar 17 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

And does it actually make any difference as to "Who's worse, Bush or Obama" when Obama hasn't even finished yet? :eh:

Ding ding ding!

#75 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:17 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Mar 17 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Interesting comparison, but did Bush start his presidency in the middle of a bad recession? :eh:

Surely the situations are simply much too different to compare?

And does it actually make any difference as to "Who's worse, Bush or Obama" when Obama hasn't even finished yet? :eh:

Sparky

And Bush had a recession during the 2001-02 period. He still had a per-month average less than Obama, so far.

I'm judging Obama by what he's committing us to, right now. Which isn't good IMO.

Edited by RobL, 17 March 2009 - 05:36 PM.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#76 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:31 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Mar 17 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

Interesting comparison, but did Bush start his presidency in the middle of a bad recession? :eh:

Bush started right as the dot-com bubble burst, . . . so yes.

Quote

And does it actually make any difference as to "Who's worse, Bush or Obama" when Obama hasn't even finished yet? :eh:

That sounds like a threat. :p
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#77 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 06:02 PM

View PostDrew, on Mar 17 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Bush started right as the dot-com bubble burst, . . . so yes.

Mid-March.  (So relatively speaking, only just now)  He had the first two months easy.

#78 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:14 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 17 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Bad Wolf said:

He flat out promised he wouldn't ever tax health care benefits. That he now is willing to even CONSIDER it is a direct contradiction to that statement. It proves that what he said in his campaign is completely lacking in any credibility. This is not some minor issue. This was a MAIN point in his campaign. "I will not tax health care benefits." No way around it. Either he was lying then or he is SO spineless that he is willing, this soon into his presidency, to consider this. Period.

Lil

What's with this black-and-white with us or against us mentality?  This is nothing more than a "I'll hear you out."  If, after hearing them out, he comes back with "my answer's still 'no'."  Then what's the problem?

Besides, a president with the ability to change his mind in light of new information rather than stubbornly sticking to the original plan, results be damned, is a good thing, imho.  (with the caveat that, in this case, I don't think he should back down--but it's fine with me that he's at least willing to listen to alternative ideas)

This one IS black and white.  He said he'd never do it and now he's considering it.  If it was an issue on which he anticipated the possibility of changing his mind he shouldn't have said so unequivocally that he wouldn't do it.

Where's the quote from Obama?

Is there a quote out here where he says specifically he's considering it?
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#79 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:43 PM

His ADMINISTRATION has said it.  Read the NY times article.  You're not suggesting that he isn't responsible for the statements made by his administration?
Posted Image

#80 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:38 AM

Obama's campaign ran commercials:

Senator Barack Obama boldly asserts that John McCain will begin taxing health care benefits for the very first time. This week, Obama commenced a series of campaign commercials stating exactly that:

“On health care, John McCain promises a tax credit. But here’s what he won’t tell you: McCain would make you pay taxes on your health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever, raising costs for employers who offer health care, so your coverage would be reduced or dropped completely."
http://www.cfif.org/...-First-Time.htm

He was scaring people away from the other candidate with this very subject.

I'm cold Howard.jpg




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Taxing benefits, 2009

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users