Tax Burden Shifts to Middle Class

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

[kappys]

What people don't get in an ER is preventative care.

So for example, they won't get meds for high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by kappys

What people don't get in an ER is preventative care.

So for example, they won't get meds for high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

You also can't get organ transplants, cavity fillings, sex change operations, or cosmetic surgery at the emergency room. But these aren't what I'm talking about when I say necessary, basic healthcare.

If you are poor or disabled enough, you are eligible for Medicaid which does cover reasonable amounts of preventative care in addition to the necessary, basic care. If you aren't that poor or disabled, then you get to choose whether you want to devote resources to that kind of care or whether you'd rather go without it.

No one is forced to go without necessary, basic healthcare in this country. To the extent that people can't afford prudent preventative care, that is largely (perhaps completely) a result of the choices that they make in their own lives.

Healthcare isn't a right, IMO. Especially top-notch healthcare.

For those who disagree and think it should be a right, I'm interested to see just how much healthcare we are entitled to. Are we entitled to prescription birth control? Are we entitled to organ transplants? Are we entitled to anti-depressant meds? Are we entitled to have periodic MRI's to screen for cancer and other health issues? Are we entitled to top-of-the-line prosthetic devices? Are we entitled to allergy treatments?

I still haven't heard any examples of people who have been denied necessary basic healthcare.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

Does the term "fair share" appear anywhere in the CBO report?

[kappys]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you are poor or disabled enough, you are eligible for Medicaid which does cover reasonable amounts of preventative care in addition to the necessary, basic care. If you aren't that poor or disabled, then you get to choose whether you want to devote resources to that kind of care or whether you'd
For those who disagree and think it should be a right, I'm interested to see just how much healthcare we are entitled to. Are we entitled to prescription birth control? Are we entitled to organ transplants? Are we entitled to anti-depressant meds? Are we entitled to have periodic MRI's to screen for cancer and other health issues? Are we entitled to top-of-the-line prosthetic devices? Are we entitled to allergy treatments?
.

Well according the European system of health care, you are entitled to the mere basics, with decent perks until the age of 65. At that point they clamp down. Huge waiting lilsts for a new knee, good luck getting an organ. Anything that could remotely be considered a quality of life service is out the door.

[kappys]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning, when it comes to your viewpoint. I'm sure the liberal sites you visit love to pimp the mere basics from their reports. I recall at least one other report from them on malpractice insurance that you sited. I then went to the CBO site and read their report. Come to find out they used a total of TWO studies to support their arguments, one of which focused solely on acute MI(heart attack) care. The report readily admitted that it did not have the scope to give any real usefull information.

In medicine, when I see a metanalysis of studies there had better be more than 2 studies included, unless you've got something covering thousands of patients.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning...

So does that mean you have some evidence that would disprove the report's numbers/findings, i.e., that the Chimp's tax cuts favor the wealthy?

[kappys]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning...

So does that mean you have some evidence that would disprove the report's numbers/findings, i.e., that the Chimp's tax cuts favor the wealthy?

Hmmm... That seems to have been presented but blown off by you already. I feel no need to cut and paste from this thread.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That seems to have been presented but blown off by you already.

"Blown off" because it was nothing but voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors and didn't really refute the CBO's findings.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Tax shift-The rich did get richer

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4937677.html

During a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, President Bush recognized a series of local business owners and singled them out as beneficiaries of the three big tax cuts he has pushed through Congress since 2001. "Because they are dreamers and doers, people are working," the president said. It's the same folksy sales pitch Bush has used since the 2000 presidential campaign, linking his tax proposals with Main Street prosperity and the nation's "hard-working families."

But it's hard to square that Middle America rhetoric with a new study which shows that fully one-third of this year's federal tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and that the Bush tax cuts since 2001 have actually shifted the federal tax burden off the very rich and onto the middle class. The data, contained in and derived from a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), shows how three years of tax cuts have squandered national wealth that could have gone to better purposes and reveals a yawning gap between White House packaging and tax reality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Presidents And The Stock Market

Does the president affect your portfolio? Candidates would certainly like you to think that the answer is yes, and that the particular candidate doing the talking is better than the other guy.

Over the years, several studies have shown that the stock market has fared markedly better under Democrats than Republicans. (see: "The Presidential Portfolio") The difference, according to Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, both professors at the University of California Los Angeles Anderson School of Business, is much too large to be random and cannot be explained by fluctuations in the business cycle. Nor can it be explained by higher interest rates in Republican administrations.

The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans.

The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_...nts_print.html

[watermock]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Tax shift-The rich did get richer

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4937677.html

During a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, President Bush recognized a series of local business owners and singled them out as beneficiaries of the three big tax cuts he has pushed through Congress since 2001. "Because they are dreamers and doers, people are working," the president said. It's the same folksy sales pitch Bush has used since the 2000 presidential campaign, linking his tax proposals with Main Street prosperity and the nation's "hard-working families."

But it's hard to square that Middle America rhetoric with a new study which shows that fully one-third of this year's federal tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and that the Bush tax cuts since 2001 have actually shifted the federal tax burden off the very rich and onto the middle class. The data, contained in and derived from a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), shows how three years of tax cuts have squandered national wealth that could have gone to better purposes and reveals a yawning gap between White House packaging and tax reality.

First it's an editorial, not a newspiece, but what's the difference these days, she doesn't bring any hard data, and as has been pointed out, the actual tax revenue from this tax bracket has increased. Of course, this doesn't take into account any other income or sales taxes from increased employment.

Now before you flip your lid, employment is still lagging, there are serious drags on the economy, but the fact is, simple tax at the top end is not the end of the mulitiplier effect, or addition for you.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by kappys

Well according the European system of health care, you are entitled to the mere basics, with decent perks until the age of 65. At that point they clamp down. Huge waiting lilsts for a new knee, good luck getting an organ. Anything that could remotely be considered a quality of life service is out the door.

Given the fact that we have back-door insurance now (everyone who has insurance pays for those who get pro bono care), I think something should be done. But I'm not ready to look to the Europeans or to single-payer approaches for a solution. I'm willing to look at what they are doing and learn from it or borrow from it, but I doubt that I would trade our current system for any particular European system.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mortgage rates dip again

Rates drop when nobody is borrowing

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ortgages_x.htm

Interest rates on 30-year mortgages fell again and stayed under 6% for a third straight week, Freddie Mac said Thursday, remaining at their lowest averages since early April.

"Mortgage rates eased even further this week in response to a setback in economic growth during June and possibly July," Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac vice president and chief economist. "We believe the slowdown to be temporary and we expect growth to pick back up in the second half of this year."

They are lying.

In Monday's USA Today, the headline is:

Economists dial back growth forecasts


This assertion was never true. Because USA Today (and every major media outlet in America) has been screaming "Good times are coming" all year, and now that good times haven't arrived, they cover their tracks by saying "Expected good times fail to materialze," when good times were never expected.

Here is the story they tried to hide:

Economists dial back growth forecasts

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...n-survey_x.htm

Economic growth will be less robust than expected through 2004, while inflation will be higher, largely due to rising energy prices, according to 61 top [Bush loving] economists surveyed by USA TODAY.

Not everyone is convinced inflation is transitory.

"Energy costs have been so high for so long that businesses aren't confident anymore that they'll fall or fall significantly," says Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. "It's made them look toward trying to push through some smaller price increases."

Who thinks oil will be cheaper with two oilmen in the White House?

Why do you think they stole their way to power - to help inner city kids get ahead?

No, they stole power in order to 'Enron' the world the way they did California.