News of the Day II

[dannybolt]

Originally Posted by Flycoon

A loophole is something in the tax code that someone else gets to take advantage of. Sounds sarcastic and cynical but that’s as close to defining it as I can get. Carried interest is a good example.

Yep. The various depreciation standards, being able to offset past losses against future revenues, stock comp, book vs tax treatment of assets, the foreign tax credit rules, etc, etc. one man's loophole is another's justified tax break.

All that said, Burnt, I can tell you with near certainty that any politician talking about closing loopholes likely didn't know wtf he was talking about. Part of why I think we need more CPAs in Congress.

[BurnTHalO]

Originally Posted by dannybolt

Yep. The various depreciation standards, being able to offset past losses against future revenues, stock comp, book vs tax treatment of assets, the foreign tax credit rules, etc, etc. one man's loophole is another's justified tax break.

All that said, Burnt, I can tell you with near certainty that any politician talking about closing loopholes likely didn't know wtf he was talking about. Part of why I think we need more CPAs in Congress.

Or, you know, consult them. Though they arent big on consulting any experts.

[Flycoon]

Originally Posted by dannybolt

Part of why I think we need more CPAs in Congress.

Would help. Most congressmen are attorneys. Most attorneys are as tax literate as the greeter at your local Wal Mart.

[Bolthed]

Originally Posted by LightningTdi

Why would Bernie supporters want to harm them?

I’m curious, could you explain your question? All of these women support most of the democratic socialist ideals that Bernie and his supporters subscribe to. So why suggest there’s any threat whatsoever?

Pssst, this is your chance (maybe your last chance) to show that you’re not just a troll bot.

[pete]

Originally Posted by dannybolt

Thanks. Again, I wasn't arguing the statement, just hadn't seen any support for it (UHC is not a subject that I care deeply about).

As for common sense and other industrialized nations, our economic and political profile as well as fiscal priorities can vary wildly from most of the rest of the industrialized nations, for good and bad reasons. See: the military industrial complex. Hell, the simple geographic size of our country and related population spread makes those straight up comparisons fraught with peril, but now I'm just being argumentative.

I still think that when market competition is allowed and encouraged, it leads to the best overall outcomes, which a single payer might not provide to the same degree. That said, I also don't think healthcare should be left completely to the vagaries of the market, as I don't think life and death should be tied to a profit motive. I think a public "floor" option solves those two competing priorities, IE, people not dying needlessly vs. free market efficiency. I also think it's the most politically expedient as it would require less revenue to cover its cost. At any rate, I'll readily admit that healthcare isn't at the top of my list of things I'm agitated about. I might be in the minority on that one.

I'll let you in on a little secret...

I'm not an ideologue when it comes to the role of government. I think Republicans clearly are and i think the Bernie wing of the Democratic wing is, too, and I think they're both wrong.

Common sense should tell us all there are things the free market does well and there are things the free market doesn't do well. Providing health care for elderly people or people with pre-existing medical problems is not one of the things the free market does well. Those people simply cannot be profitable to insurers in a free market system unless you charge them an onerous amount for health care. And, as you noted, in a moral and enlightened society we cannot allow people to die prematurely simply because they don't have the wealth to pay for the medicines and care they need.

So, in this case, I think government is better equipped to provide universal health care to the populous than the free market, just as it's better equipped to provide infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Republicans who tell you all government is evil and that the free market is some kind of magical talisman that does everything better are, A.) Ignoring plenty of empirical data about what the free market truly sucks at, and B.) Dooming their constituents to be enslaved by the excesses of free market profiteers.

And as I said, the easiest gut check of it is simple: if universal health care is such a fiscal loser, why does every major industrialized nation have some form of it?

[LightningTdi]

Originally Posted by Bolthed

I’m curious, could you explain your question? All of these women support most of the democratic socialist ideals that Bernie and his supporters subscribe to. So why suggest there’s any threat whatsoever?

Pssst, this is your chance (maybe your last chance) to show that you’re not just a troll bot.

James T. Hodgkinson

[LightningTdi]

Bernie Sanders’ campaign workers complaining, fleeing over ‘poverty wages’: report

'...According to a report, members of Sanders’ staff have been using the senator's own campaign rhetoric against him as they try to wrestle more pay from the self-described democratic socialist.

In a letter to Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir, the campaign staffers claim they “cannot be expected to build the largest grassroots organizing program in American history while making poverty wages,” the Washington Post reported.

“Given our campaign’s commitment to fighting for a living wage of at least $15.00 an hour,” the letter continues, “we believe it is only fair that the campaign would carry through this commitment to its own field team.” ...'






https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ber...y-wages-report

[WaiverWire]

Originally Posted by Puckhead

It's absolutely "anecdotal", but I've played hockey for 30 years in Tampa with good guys north of our border. They do complain about some "waiting times" for joint surgeries, and other non-life threatening afflictions (dermatology, and other specialties, etc) But, NONE of them would trade their health system with ours, with insurance companies in control of their health. Yeah, most of our workforce have decent private insurance thru their employer, and you cannot in one fell swoop remove that from their safety net. But, perhaps, if rationally presented and defended, we can move to a single payer system sometime in our lifetimes. To our detriment, we ignore the experience(s) of other wealthy, industrialized nations and brazenly assert our system of health care is superior to any other on the planet. For the wealthy, it is.

From all research that I have done Canada, and many of the other so called government run healthcare providers, still do not pay 100% of the cost of medical issues/treatments. So I take it that when we hear that insurance companies would be shut down are they saying that we would have 100% coverage as they keep saying Medicare for All, but Medicare today only pays 80%?

In Canada the government only pays for 70% of the healthcare bill. Those that can afford insurance then purchase plans to cover the other 30%, drugs, dental and the eye doctor which is not covered in Canada from what I have read.

Also in Canada, and in England, most see the doctor from a group made up of many doctors and do not see their preferred doctor unless they are willing to wait longer.

Average wait time in Canada for non emergency issues is 14 weeks. I could not find anything defining an emergency issue.

Before I am willing to jump on the band wagon for a single payer system I want to see the make up and just what is covered and what is not, and most importantly how a person would receive that care be it from a signal doctor or do you sign up for something like "Baycare" or WellMed" and get the next doctor from the list?

[WaiverWire]

How deep is this haltered for the President? I have seen many articles just like this one and it really makes you wonder.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/colleg...n-racist-trump

[gobolts]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

How deep is this haltered for the President? I have seen many articles just like this one and it really makes you wonder.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/colleg...n-racist-trump

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Trump has taken an issue most Americans would agree on -- deport illegal immigrants who are criminals (besides the crime of being in this country undocumented, of course) -- and bastardized it through his frothy hyperbole, rhetoric and misinformation about ALL immigrants. It's reached a point where you could show that quote to pretty much anybody today -- young or old, not just college students -- and they would likely assume it came from Trump because he's been hammering the topic for over three years now. Once they assume it's from Trump they will judge the quote based on their opinion of Trump.

The real story here that Fox News either ignored or wasn't intelligent enough to recognize is that Trump's reckless and extreme use of hyperbole and misinformation in his tweets and campaign rally speeches has accelerated our country's political polarization and eliminated rational consideration by most Americans on issues he has hijacked to play to his followers.

On so many of these issues, the two sides disagree but are close enough to find an acceptable middle ground. Trump has blown those issues way out of proportion and forced Congress, the military, and many others to devote greater attention to them. This, of course, reduces the amount of work that can be done on other important issues that we might have seen resolved today if Trump wasn't elected president.