Obama's Healthcare Plan

[confettiflyer]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/

A little early, won't formally be released until Thursday, just thought I'd kick of the discussion.

I really like this part:

Obama's plan would trim $316 billion over 10 years from Medicare. Some of the savings would come from scaling back payments to private insurance plans that serve older Americans, which many analysts believe to be inflated. Other proposals include charging upper-income beneficiaries a higher premium for Medicare's prescription drug coverage.

About damn time we start hacking away at this giant, over bloated entitlement.

Another article on Medicare, posted along with the one above.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29394788/

 

[PharmDstudent]

I can't 😴 again. 🙁 Oh well, what can I really do about it???


confetti- If Medicare cuts private insurance reimbursements (even if they are said to be inflated), won't the private parties deflect their loss back onto the pharmacies by lowering their reimbursements? If that becomes the case, then that isn't going to be good for pharmacies, especially independents who don't want to sell themselves out by becoming faux mini marts.

It seems like pharmacy reimbursements are pretty low right now to begin with.

 

[confettiflyer]

I can't 😴 again. 🙁 Oh well, what can I really do about it???


confetti- If Medicare cuts private insurance reimbursements (even if they are said to be inflated), won't the private parties deflect their loss back onto the pharmacies by lowering their reimbursements? If that becomes the case, then that isn't going to be good for pharmacies, especially independents who don't want to sell themselves out by becoming faux mini marts.

It seems like pharmacy reimbursements are pretty low right now to begin with.

Yeah this could be all sorts of bad, I'm curious to see what ends up getting hammered out in congress though. This is just one big ugly starting point in a bigger version of the flea market haggle.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Yeah this could be all sorts of bad, I'm curious to see what ends up getting hammered out in congress though. This is just one big ugly starting point in a bigger version of the flea market haggle.

People like CVS/Caremark and WAGS/WHI could get screwed-over pretty well, mostly due to the fact that they've incorporated 3rd party responsibilities into their companies.

Haha on the flea market haggle comment.

 

[WhiteSnows]

Obama does not say anything about clinical pharmacist. Good.

 

[confettiflyer]

Obama does not say anything about clinical pharmacist. Good.

😕

Unless you're living under a rock or are just plain stupid, it's pretty obvious this is going to affect essentially every healthcare provider out there.

 

[fhx06]

Yeah, pretty much. I foresee a horrible backlash within the next year or so. 🙁

 

[aelephant]

Obama has also re-opened the possibility of importation, so that old debate is on again.

I am curious if there are any PRO-importation pharmacists and what they would cite as advantages.

As far as I can tell, there are a few key concerns:

1. Safety/quality/counterfeiting
2. Actual efficacy in lowering prices
3. Increased regulation vicariously through countries that price cap

 

[nnguyenc]

so is Obama good for pharmacist or bad?

 

[neva]

obama is very very bad for pharmacist!! we r lucky if there r even jobs in 2-3 years. retail pharmacies will probably be hit the strongest. not that it matters but walgreens wont even be hiring pharmacist as they are shutting down their pharmacies as we speak 😡.

does everyone agree with me?

 

[Vitamin K]

obama is very very bad for pharmacist!! we r lucky if there r even jobs in 2-3 years. retail pharmacies will probably be hit the strongest. not that it matters but walgreens wont even be hiring pharmacist as they are shutting down their pharmacies as we speak 😡.

does everyone agree with me?

No.

 

[meister]

obama is very very bad for pharmacist!! we r lucky if there r even jobs in 2-3 years. retail pharmacies will probably be hit the strongest. not that it matters but walgreens wont even be hiring pharmacist as they are shutting down their pharmacies as we speak 😡.

does everyone agree with me?

No.

 

[confettiflyer]

obama is very very bad for pharmacist!! we r lucky if there r even jobs in 2-3 years. retail pharmacies will probably be hit the strongest. not that it matters but walgreens wont even be hiring pharmacist as they are shutting down their pharmacies as we speak 😡.

does everyone agree with me?

You have idiotic ideas. No.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If that yahoo actually goes through with it and socializes access to health insurance, it will help the profession. My God, imagine the resultant demand for pharmacists with 50 million new patients with newly minted Blue Cross cards. 😱

 

[Doctor M]

If that yahoo actually goes through with it and socializes access to health insurance, it will help the profession. My God, imagine the resultant demand for pharmacists with 50 million new patients with newly minted Blue Cross cards. 😱

your kidding right? I hope you are...cause bro, your gonna be working a lot more hours for the same pay...or keep working the same hours for less pay...His Budget proposal is a joke...I might as well throw my degree down the drain...what the --ck did i go to school for? obviously i should have just been less fortunate and not educated myself and just let the government bail me out...Free healthcare for everyone and more pharmacist jobs...


I think i sensed a little sarcasm in your post but i couldnt tell...but i hope you were kidding...

 

[Doctor M]

so is Obama good for pharmacist or bad?

Depends if you wanna work harder for less, the american dream nowadays...Obama is bad for the small business owner...his plan is bad for individuals...

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

where do you think this money will come from...I personally do not want to pay for your health insurance...and im sure you dont want to pay for your neighbors...especially when you are paying yours, your families and now someone elses...but hey, im sure there are many obama supporters here, so lets hear their argument...

 

[Doctor M]

I can't 😴 again. 🙁 Oh well, what can I really do about it???


confetti- If Medicare cuts private insurance reimbursements (even if they are said to be inflated), won't the private parties deflect their loss back onto the pharmacies by lowering their reimbursements? If that becomes the case, then that isn't going to be good for pharmacies, especially independents who don't want to sell themselves out by becoming faux mini marts.

It seems like pharmacy reimbursements are pretty low right now to begin with.

thats exactly what would happen...reimbursement would be a joke...and here come the mini marts... i would start selling tobacco, alcohol, lottery...the 21st century ma and pa shop🙂

 

[WVUPharm2007]

where do you think this money will come from...I personally do not want to pay for your health insurance...and im sure you dont want to pay for your neighbors...especially when you are paying yours, your families and now someone elses...but hey, im sure there are many obama supporters here, so lets hear their argument...

I hate all politicians. I'm certainly not an Obama supporter. Conservatives are just as ******ed. But I honestly do hope that something is done to increase demand for pharmacists before these new schools flip the numbers and screw us all. Self preservation and all.

And, honestly...if a person contributes to society, I have no problem with it being mandated that they get health insurance. So if we are talking about the 7-11 worker with an IQ of 70 whose only possible life goal is to ascertain a job as a service clerk...and he accomplishes that and performs his duty to society...yeah, he should have health insurance. It's not his ****ing fault he can't figure out trigonometry. You may say that's a slippery slope. It probably is. But that's what you get when you realize the world isn't as black and white as people pretend it is. Shades of gray mother****er.

And that's the problem I have with libertarianism. It's pretty much just an idiotic philosophy that would only serve to just perpetuate plutocracies and unsustainable wealth stratification. And, really, that's the problem with ALL economic philosophies. Socialism, fascism, capitalism, feudalism...whatever...its pretty much not going to work if its only as dynamic as operating within the confines of said ideology allows. You want true Laissez-Faire capitalism? Go look up Somalia. No economic constraints anywhere.

So, yeah, what I'm saying is that if you call yourself a libertarian, conservative, liberal, socialist...yup, I think you're a ******* with tunnel vision. There is no magical book of facts in regards to economics. It's organic. There are no rules. And those in politics will never learn this...because, again, they are all *******es with tunnel vision.

So just like Bush before him and Reagan even before him made the economy ridiculously and unsustainably tilted towards corporatistic-capitalism...Obama will "overcorrect" the problem and **** us all in a different, yet equally idiotic fashion.

The guy that figures out how to make the economy as mixed as possible with power as spread out as possible will be the winner. Sadly, Washington has no winners. Eventually this bad economic cycle will die. One of the parties will claim that they "made it happen" when in reality, the fact is that our currency's status as the de facto international fiat is what is really keeping us economically afloat. Until the world runs out of oil. Then we'll need to come up with the next great hussle.

 

[fhx06]

You're asking for a world without greed... and that's asking for too much.

 

[meister]

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

He's lying to you bro, Obama's budget calls for increasing taxes on the top bracket by simply phasing out Bush's (******ed) tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. That would take effect in 2011. He's also going to maintain the estate tax on those estates valued at over $3.5 million. You should expect nothing less from Boehner than to lie and distort though, the House GOP is pretty worthless.

And I say that as someone who has Eric Cantor as his congressional representative.

I hate all politicians. I'm certainly not an Obama supporter. Conservatives are just as ******ed.

WVU...I understand your pessimism, but you are letting off the GOP way too easily with this. You can't just equate everyone and say "WOE IS ME!" There are people who are less bad in this situation, and I think it's pretty obvious that Limbaugh et al are clearly the ones trying to take advantage of a recession/possible depression to reap as many political wins as they can. It's ****ing pathetic what they're doing, and you should not equate Obama with these lying ****s.

Think I'm lying? Watch Limbaugh give his CPAC speech and you'll see what I'm talking about. Bunch of rabid fascists, I swear to god. Scary.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU...I understand your pessimism, but you are letting off the GOP way too easily with this.

I am? What part of "ideological *******es" don't you understand?

You can't just equate everyone and say "WOE IS ME!" There are people who are less bad in this situation, and I think it's pretty obvious that Limbaugh et al are clearly the ones trying to take advantage of a recession/possible depression to reap as many political wins as they can. It's ****ing pathetic what they're doing, and you should not equate Obama with these lying ****s.

Obama is just as bad. He was sitting there promising to cure cancer. There is so much wrong with that concept I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there are brilliant oncologists that cure cancer every day. Second of all, there will never be some magical bullet against cancer because "cancer" is a blanket term for several, several diseases. What he's doing is selling snake oil flight-by-night style. It's just as bad.

Think I'm lying? Watch Limbaugh give his CPAC speech and you'll see what I'm talking about. Bunch of rabid fascists, I swear to god. Scary.

Rush Limbaugh is just a dude with a radio show. Who cares what he thinks?

 

[meister]

Obama is just as bad. He was sitting there promising to cure cancer. There is so much wrong with that concept I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there are brilliant oncologists that cure cancer every day. Second of all, there will never be some magical bullet against cancer because "cancer" is a blanket term for several, several diseases. What he's doing is selling snake oil flight-by-night style. It's just as bad.

First of all, what are you talking about? Where did he talk about cancer? Must have missed that campaign promise. Secondly, the only thing you've offered to demonstrate Obama is as bad as the GOP is this cancer line. Is there anything more substantive that you have against him? Because the state of the country right now is directly a result of GOP shenanigans for the last 8 years, as well as Reaganomics (which I know you realize). Of course the democrats aren't free from blame, but right now the GOP is far, far more to blame. Just because there are "two" options, does not mean that they are equally culpable.

Rush Limbaugh is just a dude with a radio show. Who cares what he thinks?

Haha have you been paying attention? Limbaugh had a sitting congressman call up his show and beg for forgiveness a couple weeks ago. This guy is the face of the GOP currently, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity all wrapped up in a greasy fat oxy chugging package. Ugh.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

First of all, what are you talking about? Where did he talk about cancer? Must have missed that campaign promise. Secondly, the only thing you've offered to demonstrate Obama is as bad as the GOP is this cancer line. Is there anything more substantive that you have against him? Because the state of the country right now is directly a result of GOP shenanigans for the last 8 years, as well as Reaganomics (which I know you realize). Of course the democrats aren't free from blame, but right now the GOP is far, far more to blame. Just because there are "two" options, does not mean that they are equally culpable.

Well, the state of the country isn't just on the heads of the GOP. And really, the tax rates aren't that different, anyway. A few percentage points. It's like arguing the virtues of cyan versus light blue. Clinton and Co. did a fine job of continuing the destruction of the middle class and the exploitation of third world labor with the disaster that was NAFTA. He's the only dem in the last 20 years...and his policies were pretty similar to the other presidents' policies. The last president that had any damned economic sense was Nixon and he was a Republican.

And Obama...that cancer thing was from his address this week, btw. But he has said other dumb things, too. I remember when he claimed that his goal was to get rid of gas-based cars in 10 years. Yeah, not possible. But, look, his presidency just started. I's not fair to compare his inevitable failure with actual failures that have already happened.

Haha have you been paying attention? Limbaugh had a sitting congressman call up his show and beg for forgiveness a couple weeks ago. This guy is the face of the GOP currently, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity all wrapped up in a greasy fat oxy chugging package. Ugh.

...and he's still just a ******* with a radio show and no real power. Michael Moore has about as much pull with liberals... and he has as much power as tubby behind the mic. None. Is he influential? Perhaps. But he isn't in government.

 

[BMBiology]

Healthcare professionals will be paid less per patient but since there will be more people with health insurance, healthcare professionals will generally make more money.

 

[BMBiology]

I remember when he claimed that his goal was to get rid of gas-based cars in 10 years.

He said he will help the U.S. become independent of foreign oil in 10 years, not get rid of gas-based cars in 10 years.

 

[nlax30]

He's lying to you bro, Obama's budget calls for increasing taxes on the top bracket by simply phasing out Bush's (******ed) tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. That would take effect in 2011. He's also going to maintain the estate tax on those estates valued at over $3.5 million. You should expect nothing less from Boehner than to lie and distort though, the House GOP is pretty worthless.

So once you start earning an attending's salary you're fine with being in a 39.6% tax bracket?

WVU...I understand your pessimism, but you are letting off the GOP way too easily with this. You can't just equate everyone and say "WOE IS ME!" There are people who are less bad in this situation, and I think it's pretty obvious that Limbaugh et al are clearly the ones trying to take advantage of a recession/possible depression to reap as many political wins as they can. It's ****ing pathetic what they're doing, and you should not equate Obama with these lying ****s.

Think I'm lying? Watch Limbaugh give his CPAC speech and you'll see what I'm talking about. Bunch of rabid fascists, I swear to god. Scary.

Do you actually ever listen to Limbaugh beyond what audio clips the media takes and plays back?

What's scary to ME is how Obama has handled himself so far. Doom and gloom is most of what I hear unless we rush to do what HE wants? He's the one who talked about bipartisanship yet on the surface it seems as if it's either his way or the highway.

If you do listen at all to Limbaugh (or most of the other conservative commentators) then you'd realize they've been saying the same thing for years..... has nothing to do with trying to "take advantage" of a recession (seriously??? come on). They've beat up on Bush aplenty, but people tend to forget that.

Haha....I'm pretty sure you and I will have polar opposite political beliefs in reference to government's role and the economy. 😀

 

[WVUPharm2007]

He said he will help the U.S. become independent of foreign oil in 10 years, not get rid of gas-based cars in 10 years.

Yeah...which is stupid. The US needs the entire world as addicted to oil as possible. It's what keeps our economy going. It's the only reason the dollar has any value. If he plans on doing that, he needs to figure out a way to restructure how the dollar is valued internationally first.

 

[BMBiology]

If he plans on doing that, he needs to figure out a way to restructure how the dollar is valued internationally first.

One step at a time.

 

[meister]

So once you start earning an attending's salary you're fine with being in a 39.6% tax bracket?

On income over $250,000? Fine by me, considering that's what it was since Reagan instituted that rate. You know who Reagan is right?

Do you actually ever listen to Limbaugh beyond what audio clips the media takes and plays back?

I have, and all he does is lie and scream at a bunch of strawmen all day and take callers who fellate him. It is very boring.

What's scary to ME is how Obama has handled himself so far. Doom and gloom is most of what I hear unless we rush to do what HE wants? He's the one who talked about bipartisanship yet on the surface it seems as if it's either his way or the highway.

Right...because Obama made absolutely no overtures to talk to the congressional GOP leadership. Oh wait no he actually broke convention, went to their chamber to listen to them, included the largest tax break in history as part of the stimulus, and still got zero House GOP votes. You're right, he's the one not being bipartisan! The fact of the matter is, Obama put those tax cuts in the stimulus bill right out of the gate to garner GOP votes against the will of his party and then got the finger from the GOP. They're acting like children.

They've beat up on Bush aplenty, but people tend to forget that.

Haha right, where were all these supposed fiscal conservatives for the last eight years while we plunged head first into a trillion dollar war and ****ed up a budgetary surplus into a trillion dollar deficit? Oh right, they don't care about the country, only "winning."

Haha....I'm pretty sure you and I will have polar opposite political beliefs in reference to government's role and the economy. 😀

Yeah, but the difference between me and Limbaugh is I won't lie to your face to try to persuade you. Limbaugh and crew have no problem doing that.

 

[meister]

It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dissonance that must be going on in one's head to vote for tax breaks twice before that ballooned the deficit but vote against it now whilst in the middle of a recession heading right toward economic ruin.

I mean you didn't give a **** about the deficit then, why now? What's different?

 

[BMBiology]

The Obama team is using Rush Limbaugh to crush the GOP:

The Limbaugh strategy

Rahm, unprompted, brought up the effort to make Rush Limbaugh the front man for the GOP this morning on Face the Nation, a sign that it's coming from the top level of the administration:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel charged Sunday that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."

Emanuel, speaking in deliberately soothing tones, told anchor Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Limbaugh has been up front about "praying for failure" by President Obama.

"I think that's the wrong philosophy for America," Emanuel said. "What Americans want us to do, and what President Obama has been very clear about, is work together setting our goals …

"Our goal, Bob, is to continue to reach out and it's our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh."

Emanuel's comments, which came unprompted, were in line with a new strategy by White House allies in the private sector to make Limbaugh synonymous with the GOP. But Emanuel's move for the first time brought that strategy into the West Wing, an unmistakable elevation of the effort to damage Republicans by depicting them as taking their marching orders from a deeply polarizing talk show host.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/The_Limbaugh_strategy.html

Brilliant as usual.

 

[meister]

But Emanuel’s move for the first time brought that strategy into the West Wing

Ben's wrong about this, Obama brought up Limbaugh umprompted when he was first courting the House GOP like three weeks ago. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" or something similar.

This strategy is pretty cunning, the GOP is going to eat itself alive.

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

He's lying to you bro, Obama's budget calls for increasing taxes on the top bracket by simply phasing out Bush's (******ed) tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. That would take effect in 2011.

Obama is not "phasing" out Bush's tax cuts. They were set to expire in 2011.

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

"Right...because Obama made absolutely no overtures to talk to the congressional GOP leadership. Oh wait no he actually broke convention, went to their chamber to listen to them, included the largest tax break in history as part of the stimulus, and still got zero House GOP votes. You're right, he's the one not being bipartisan! The fact of the matter is, Obama put those tax cuts in the stimulus bill right out of the gate to garner GOP votes against the will of his party and then got the finger from the GOP. They're acting like children."

You are kidding, right? Because the Reps didn't want to support a pork laiden bill with a tax cut, they are the bad guys? Seriously??? The stimulus is a HUGE waste of money. Bush's big spending is just continuing into the Obama administration. You voted for the change and the only change I see is spending at a faster pace than ever.

This is a joke of an administration.. but Wall Street sure loves him, right? Gotta love that DOW under 7000...

Psss.. I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason Obama wanted Rep support is because when the stimulus fails (and it will), he could say "but it was a bipartisan effort and the best thing we had at the time"...

 

[pharmacyanalyst]

Originally Posted by nlax30
So once you start earning an attending's salary you're fine with being in a 39.6% tax bracket?

On income over $250,000? Fine by me, considering that's what it was since Reagan instituted that rate. You know who Reagan is right?

I love to be right (must be the Republican in me!). Reagan only raised the rate to 28%, it was Clinton who raised it to 39.6%. In fact, Bush Sr reversed Reagan's cuts from 28% to 31% which is what got him in trouble with the "Read my lips".. I'm sure you remember...

 

[BMBiology]

"This is a joke of an administration.. but Wall Street sure loves him, right? Gotta love that DOW under 7000...

Psss.. I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason Obama wanted Rep support is because when the stimulus fails (and it will), he could say "but it was a bipartisan effort and the best thing we had at the time"...

First, it is Obama's fault that our economy is in a wrack right? Give me a break. You are way too simple minded.

Second, if the stimulus fails, the voters will blame Obama regardless if he got bipartisan support or not. He reached out to them because he knew they would reject his effort. It only makes him look good so he can push his agenda (rightly so). The GOP got played. Brilliant as always.

 

[type b pharmD]

First, it is Obama's fault that our economy is in a wrack right? Give me a break. You are way too simple minded.

Second, if the stimulus fails, the voters will blame Obama regardless if he got bipartisan support or not. He reached out to them because he knew they would reject his effort. It only makes him look good so he can push his agenda (rightly so). The GOP got played. Brilliant as always.

true. he knows what he's doing.👍 even haters can't say the man isnt a political mastermind

 

[BMBiology]

This strategy is pretty cunning, the GOP is going to eat itself alive.

Classic divide and conquer!

 

[fhx06]

Divide, and conquer through peer pressure. Woot.

I still think saving the foreclosure of homes is a smarter step than giving money to companies whose executives have nearly bankrupted themselves. We're trying to save a financial system dependent on consumers who now face losing their jobs and homes in addition to their daily living expenses. Oh, and I suppose having characters like Madoff makes all this even more pathetic.

That's it, I'm moving to Mars and starting my own society of robots built upon sunshine and happiness.

 

[hoppinglark]

Originally Posted by meister
It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dissonance that must be going on in one's head to vote for tax breaks twice before that ballooned the deficit but vote against it now whilst in the middle of a recession heading right toward economic ruin.

I mean you didn't give a **** about the deficit then, why now? What's different?

I have to call bobbins on that.
Tax breaks INCREASE tax revenue, when there's a down turn, because of the multiplier effect, and the separate higher tax brackets for corporations.
Look it up!

Tax increases are used to stop an out of control economy, like raising interest rates. It can actually reduce revenue.
Like when Republican President Hoover and a Republican controlled congress raised taxes and instituted New tarrifs, which destroyed an already weak economy.
Republicans learned their lesson from that little disaster.

*edit-
here's the example from the Wikipedia Laffer Curve page
In 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing" he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets). Personal income-tax receipts rose from $719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929, which supporters attribute to the rate cut
Source: Folsom Jr., Burton W., "The Myth of the Robber Barons", page 103. Young America's Foundation, 2007.

 

[museabuse]

We are paid well as pharmacists but what sucks is we don't get to take advantage of any of the tax breaks. I have 140000 in student loans yet I don't get to take advantage of deducting my student loan interest(which is a lot) cause I make too much. I can't deduct my 6000 in medical bills because i make too much. I can't take advantage of the 8000 dollar house credit because I make too much. I hope we dont get our taxes raised because we make too much, cause were already being punished.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I have to call bobbins on that.
Tax breaks INCREASE tax revenue, when there's a down turn, because of the multiplier effect, and the separate higher tax brackets for corporations.
Look it up!

Tax increases are used to stop an out of control economy, like raising interest rates. It can actually reduce revenue.
Like when Republican President Hoover and a Republican controlled congress raised taxes and instituted New tarrifs, which destroyed an already weak economy.
Republicans learned their lesson from that little disaster.

*edit-
here's the example from the Wikipedia Laffer Curve page
In 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing" he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets). Personal income-tax receipts rose from $719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929, which supporters attribute to the rate cut
Source: Folsom Jr., Burton W., "The Myth of the Robber Barons", page 103. Young America's Foundation, 2007.

Increasing taxes during a recession can make sense. Especially when there is a stratification of wealth in which the majority of wealth is held by the elites and the majority of the public has no expendable money to get the economy churning. Having such a concrete ideal about taxes being good or bad in various situations isn't a very good way to run things.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

We are paid well as pharmacists but what sucks is we don't get to take advantage of any of the tax breaks. I have 140000 in student loans yet I don't get to take advantage of deducting my student loan interest(which is a lot) cause I make too much. I can't deduct my 6000 in medical bills because i make too much. I can't take advantage of the 8000 dollar house credit because I make too much. I hope we dont get our taxes raised because we make too much, cause were already being punished.

It's not a punishment, it is for your own good, the government knows how to spend/spread your money much better than you ever could.😉 You might do something crazy with that extra money, like pay off debt or save it and that is a no no. spend spend spend!!!!!

 

[hoppinglark]

Originally Posted by WVUPharm2007
Increasing taxes during a recession can make sense. Especially when there is a stratification of wealth in which the majority of wealth is held by the elites and the majority of the public has no expendable money to get the economy churning. Having such a concrete ideal about taxes being good or bad in various situations isn't a very good way to run things.

How is raising taxes going to help? It will hurt small businesses who employ people, that hurts the economy.
It pulls funds out of the system, that hurts the economy.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dissonance that must be going on in one's head to vote for tax breaks twice before that ballooned the deficit but vote against it now whilst in the middle of a recession heading right toward economic ruin.

I mean you didn't give a **** about the deficit then, why now? What's different?

 

[nikkai]

Divide, and conquer through peer pressure. Woot.

I still think saving the foreclosure of homes is a smarter step than giving money to companies whose executives have nearly bankrupted themselves. We're trying to save a financial system dependent on consumers who now face losing their jobs and homes in addition to their daily living expenses. Oh, and I suppose having characters like Madoff makes all this even more pathetic.

That's it, I'm moving to Mars and starting my own society of robots built upon sunshine and happiness.

I agree and disagree, such is life.

The HASP is fine and dandy in theory, and obviously, there will be pissed off "responsible homeowners" who do not benefit (ie: anyone on the west coast). But here's my issue:

The 105 LTV provision sounds great... in theory. In reality it is inviting massive fraud.

You thought appraisal fraud was bad during the bubble? Let's see how many appraisals come in right at that magic number of 105 LTV.

The appraisers who saw their business disappear in the last years will line up at lenders' doors with a promise to hit 105.

What broker will turn down their commission on a loan because an appraiser might not be on the level? What bank is going to deny the appraisal when it means free money from the government? What borrower will withdraw their application because they feel the appraisal was too high?

The appraisers are desperate for business, the brokers are desperate for business, the banks are desperate for business and the borrowers are desperate to steal this money, no matter what the true value of their home.

It just reeks of the same crap that went on during the bubble, but now the principal motivating factor is desperation rather than greed.

 

[meister]

Did someone really post the laffer curve up in this thread? I'm afraid to scroll up...


Wow.

 

[type b pharmD]

Personal income-tax receipts rose from $719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929, which supporters attribute to the rate cut
Source: Folsom Jr., Burton W., "The Myth of the Robber Barons", page 103. Young America's Foundation, 2007.

Do you know a lot about the economics of the 1920s?