quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
It lists some spinning about the NSA (the program that Bushstarted),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

quote:

Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952.

Exactly which Bush were you talking about?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that Bush started the NSA. I meant the program to capture audio from citizens cell phones. And that would be GWB,

quote:

quote:

and the infamous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", which was actually technically 100% true. (Albeit misleading)
There is nothing in the ACA that says you have to switch doctors.

Semantics. When the ACA forces insurance plan changes, you don't necessarily get to keep your plan, if you like your healthcare plan (another claim). When changes due to the ACA result in your doctor no longer accepting your insurance plan (whether that's the doctor's choice or the practice's), unless a person is independently wealthy enough to pay their own way, switching doctors is, in fact, due to the ACA.

But, politicians of any stripe will say damn near anything to get their way, honest truth be damned.

Technically, the ACA doesn't FORCE anything. Plans start and stop all the time, with or without the ACA. Furthermore, if a plan is no longer certified to meet the ACA mandate (which I think is what you meant), there is nothing the ACA does to FORCE it not to exist.

Also, on the provider side: At the end of the day, it is the Provider's choice as to what insurance he/she will accept. There is nothing in the ACA that is prescriptive in this area. In fact, a provider is free to accept non-certified plans.


It is a bit of a semantic argument. But Obama's comments, strictly in the context of the ACA, were 100% true, albeit extremely misleading.

A far more descriptive and accurate set of comments might have been:

"Although, the ACA does nothing to mandate any change in your plan or your doctor... If you have a plan that does not meet the basic requirements of the mandate, it is likely that your insurance company will either cancel or modify your plan, which in turn can result in your doctor no longer being in your network"

Just saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well what the rent-seeking, for profit crowd don't want you to know and why the right keeps focusing on this sound bite, is that great and glorious marketplace is what forced patients to change drs....not the law.

What people do not want to accept, is that the great and glorious marketplace doesn't give a fuck about your dr. , your health care or your fucking health for that matter. All [it] cares about is..just the profits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Not at all. I am explaining that tax cuts (especially ones that heavily weighted for the highest income earners) have a negligible short-term positive impact on the economy, and have a long-term negative impact on the economy through increased debt. If there were a tax cut heavily expanding the brackets of and the lowering the rates for the 12% and 25% bracket, there might be a more significant positive growth impact. However, such a tax cut has not been proposed.
I have been saying this for years and continue to say it:
The job creators are the middle class. We keep the economy moving more than any other group (except at times, the Federal Government)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Not at all. I am explaining that tax cuts (especially ones that heavily weighted for the highest income earners) have a negligible short-term positive impact on the economy, and have a long-term negative impact on the economy through increased debt. If there were a tax cut heavily expanding the brackets of and the lowering the rates for the 12% and 25% bracket, there might be a more significant positive growth impact. However, such a tax cut has not been proposed.
I have been saying this for years and continue to say it:
The job creators are the middle class. We keep the economy moving more than any other group (except at times, the Federal Government)

Are you stating the case that the increased debt levels we're accumulating since Clinton are currently limiting economic growth?

Tax revenues shot up dramatically. By the end of the Bush years, revenues were nearly 25% higher than any year under Clinton. That there are much greater deficits has nothing to do with the economy or the increased revenues. Income tax revenue burden has also shifted towards the upper earners, too. A higher percentage of income earners owed zero Federal Income tax liability at the end of the Bush years than at the beginning of the Bush years. Everyone go the benefit of a lower first bracket rate. As a % of income, that helped the lower level earners more than the upper level earners. That there are fewer dollars involved only has to do with the idea that if you're not paying a lot of money in taxes, it's pretty tough to give you a tax cut that results in your not having to a lot less money. Someone who pays $10k in income taxes isn't going to be able to see a $20k tax break, but someone who is paying $100k could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Not at all. I am explaining that tax cuts (especially ones that heavily weighted for the highest income earners) have a negligible short-term positive impact on the economy, and have a long-term negative impact on the economy through increased debt. If there were a tax cut heavily expanding the brackets of and the lowering the rates for the 12% and 25% bracket, there might be a more significant positive growth impact. However, such a tax cut has not been proposed.
I have been saying this for years and continue to say it:
The job creators are the middle class. We keep the economy moving more than any other group (except at times, the Federal Government)

Are you stating the case that the increased debt levels we're accumulating since Clinton are currently limiting economic growth?
Tax revenues shot up dramatically. By the end of the Bush years, revenues were nearly 25% higher than any year under Clinton. That there are much greater deficits has nothing to do with the economy or the increased revenues. Income tax revenue burden has also shifted towards the upper earners, too. A higher percentage of income earners owed zero Federal Income tax liability at the end of the Bush years than at the beginning of the Bush years. Everyone go the benefit of a lower first bracket rate. As a % of income, that helped the lower level earners more than the upper level earners. That there are fewer dollars involved only has to do with the idea that if you're not paying a lot of money in taxes, it's pretty tough to give you a tax cut that results in your not having to a lot less money. Someone who pays $10k in income taxes isn't going to be able to see a $20k tax break, but someone who is paying $100k could.

No. I am not stating that case. Tax revenues went down for years after the tax cuts. I already stated, and posted links stating other factors that contributed to higher tax revenues which occurred later.
And yes. Bush added the 15% tax bracket which helped everyone. Thanks Bush. Obama kept Bush's bracket and added a 2% FICA discount for a few years! Thanks Obama.
You continue to fall into the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Not at all. I am explaining that tax cuts (especially ones that heavily weighted for the highest income earners) have a negligible short-term positive impact on the economy, and have a long-term negative impact on the economy through increased debt. If there were a tax cut heavily expanding the brackets of and the lowering the rates for the 12% and 25% bracket, there might be a more significant positive growth impact. However, such a tax cut has not been proposed.
I have been saying this for years and continue to say it:
The job creators are the middle class. We keep the economy moving more than any other group (except at times, the Federal Government)

Are you stating the case that the increased debt levels we're accumulating since Clinton are currently limiting economic growth?
Tax revenues shot up dramatically. By the end of the Bush years, revenues were nearly 25% higher than any year under Clinton. That there are much greater deficits has nothing to do with the economy or the increased revenues. Income tax revenue burden has also shifted towards the upper earners, too. A higher percentage of income earners owed zero Federal Income tax liability at the end of the Bush years than at the beginning of the Bush years. Everyone go the benefit of a lower first bracket rate. As a % of income, that helped the lower level earners more than the upper level earners. That there are fewer dollars involved only has to do with the idea that if you're not paying a lot of money in taxes, it's pretty tough to give you a tax cut that results in your not having to a lot less money. Someone who pays $10k in income taxes isn't going to be able to see a $20k tax break, but someone who is paying $100k could.

No. I am not stating that case. Tax revenues went down for years after the tax cuts. I already stated, and posted links stating other factors that contributed to higher tax revenues which occurred later.
And yes. Bush added the 15% tax bracket which helped everyone. Thanks Bush. Obama kept Bush's bracket and added a 2% FICA discount for a few years! Thanks Obama.
You continue to fall into the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

We disagree. I see I'm not going to persuade you and I know you aren't going to persuade me.

As a Libertarian, though, I'm good with allowing We the People to spend more money we earned in ways we decide for ourselves. So, in general, I'm all for tax cuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
My general point is... You are making assumptions based on "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic.
X happened after Y therefore X happened BECAUSE of Y. It's just not the case.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

FR

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds%3famp

Obama
Hillary Clinton
Susan Rice
L. Todd Wood
Eric Holder
Lois Lerner
Kathleen Sebelius
Lisa Jackson
etc.

Did you even read your link? Not just the title?
It lists some spinning about the NSA (the program that Bushstarted), an exaggeration about guns to make a point, and the infamous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", which was actually technically 100% true. (Albeit misleading)

There is nothing in the ACA that says you have to switch doctors.

Also From your link:
In early 2003, Bush’s speeches continually warned, “If war is forced upon us....” There was never any truth to war being “forced upon us” (except by the White House) but that phrase helped Bush panic audiences still jittery after 9/11. The Center for Public Integrity, which has won two Pulitzer Prizes, compiled a list of 935 lies by Bush and his top appointees on Iraq. Perhaps to preserve the column’s lofty tone, the Times omitted any mention of Bush’s four years of brazenly false denials of authorizing a worldwide torture regime.