Politics

[chicago51]

Shouldn't this be compared to what they have done in office? For example, simply taking the existing tax rate and comparing doesn't take into consideration where the rates were prior to them coming in office. From that perspective, Obama has raised taxes.

As it relates to free trade, what was Obama supposed to do? Reverse everything that has been done up to this point? Also, free trade is much more common place today than what it was previously. So, a simple comparison really doesn't say much at all. To me, it is more a referendum on the current marketplace.

For better or worse Obama is working on the Trans Pacific Partnership and Trans Atlantic trade agreements, the latter has been derailed largely from the fall back of Snowden and the NSAA spying on European leaders. Both these are two huge trade agreements.

Yes I will agree Obama may want things to be different, so you are correct. I started out at one point but my main point was to point out for better or worse this is still a Reagan economy rather Obama likes it or not. There have been minor changes since Reagan but there has been nothing "revolutionary". Reagan was a revolutionary President just like FDR, TR, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Washington (Hamilton economic policy). Those guys dramatically changed the economy and we really haven't a game changer since Reagan and his policy is still very much alive and well.

 

[wizards8507]

By the way, I wouldn't necessarily throw cyurrent R leadership back in R faces, because many of the R's would gladly see them go away as they don't adhere to many of the spending limits people want anyway. Also, how can it be that the R's just keep moving things further right, but yet you point out that they agree to continue spending like drunken sailors?)

This is why (real, small-government, liberty-conscious) conservatives can't even get themselves heard in conversations. Boehner, Bush, and friends have become real-life strawmen that liberals can argue against. They (the Democrats) have defined "conservative" as "more like those guys," i.e. intrusive social policies, crony corporatism, The Patriot Act, etc. Thus, when a liberty-minded candidate talks about how he's the "real conservative" alternative to a guy like Mitt Romney, the low information voter has been trained to think "more conservative = more like Bush and we didn't like Bush, therefore we don't like this guy." The vocabulary needs to change. The definition of "conservatism" has been so misconstrued and co-opted that it's time for the small-government, little "r" republicans to throw the term away and take the Ron Paul route of focusing on liberty.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is why (real, small-government, liberty-conscious) conservatives can't even get themselves heard in conversations. Boehner, Bush, and friends have become real-life strawmen that liberals can argue against. They (the Democrats) have defined "conservative" as "more like those guys," i.e. intrusive social policies, crony corporatism, The Patriot Act, etc. Thus, when a liberty-minded candidate talks about how he's the "real conservative" alternative to a guy like Mitt Romney, the low information voter has been trained to think "more conservative = more like Bush and we didn't like Bush, therefore we don't like this guy." The vocabulary needs to change. The definition of "conservatism" has been so misconstrued and co-opted that it's time for the small-government, little "r" republicans to throw the term away and take the Ron Paul route of focusing on liberty.

You'd think these "new" republicans would just form their own party since they don't have anything in common with the old guard. Except they can't, because they need the establishment republicans to remain viable.

 

[wizards8507]

You'd think these "new" republicans would just form their own party since they don't have anything in common with the old guard. Except they can't, because they need the establishment republicans to remain viable.

And therein lies the rub. If they were to split the Republican party, they'd lose every election 40-30-30. My guess is that the best hope would be a viable Libertarian party.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It is a valid question to ask where does it stop. However, all of the things you listed in the front of your post have nothing to do with the debt limit. Laws about the minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment benefits, the Affordable Care Act, and stimulus spending are all looked at separately by Congress. The extent to which they "agree" on a legislative approach to any of these means that they have agreed to spend the money. Once the money is spent, it is reckless to threaten not to pay the bills. Go out a buy a new car and then make a decision not to pay the bill and see what happens to your credit rating. It is just plain irresponsibility on top of irresponsibility to do this. The answer is not spending the money in the first place or raising more money so you can afford the car. It is not a sin to raise taxes to generate more revenue. That is the responsible thing to do. It is disingenuous to come in at the end of the event and claim to be the fiscally responsible party because you are refusing to pay the bill that you, as a legislature, have already spent. It's simple political grandstanding, especially when you know that those peers with more sensibility and control will come in and save you from yourself by coming to an 11th hour agreement that averts the disaster that you helped to create by inventing this issue.

Minimum wage: Wouldn't cost the government a dime. In fact, it would expand the tax base so that more money would come into the treasury to pay the bills. It is high time that the government stopped subsidising the corporatations' workforces, providing money to make up for the fact that they don't pay their people enough to earn a living, even though they are working every day. How much is enough ... how about the point at which full-time workers hit the bottom of the scale for a living wage and stop having to rely on the government to make ends meet when the deck is stacked against them.

The purpose of food stamps is to ensure that the poor in our population are able to feed themselves. Prices rise at a rate that far outstrips the amount of food stamps. And, as I said in the point above, many who receive these funds are the working poor, and if they could just make enough to feed themselves, this program would shrink dramatically. I don't know what the numbers are anymore, but I do know that when Sam Walton passed away and divided his vast wealth among his family members, those 7 people were all listed on the list of 10 richest people. Yet, these companies receive a tremendous subsidy from the US government in the form of the government program like food stamps to keep their workforce fed. Why do we, as a country, not insist that companies pay their workforce enough to survive while those who run these companies grow fat on subsidized labor? How much is enough? When the amount such programs begins to approach the amount the government provides to corporation handouts, we can talk. Until then, while people are starving, what we are doing now is not enough.

Unemployment benefits: The purpose of this benefit is to fill a gap in earnings caused by job loss. It is part of a social safety net, which, if not there, would have catastrophic consequences not only for the individuals who rely on them, but also for the economy as a whole. How much is enough? Let's do a cost benefit analysis to figure out what hurts the economy more -- people who become destitute because their company can pay slave wages to get their products made in overseas factories, or providing tax breaks to companies who abandon their workers in favor of a little more profit. Should we go with the economy suffering because people are suffering, or provide unemployment benefits to not only prop up deserving families who lost their jobs, but also the entire econmy.

Spending on ACA...add another trillion a year? 10 trillion?
The ACA is designed to save money and get more people insured. It is a system that includes private companies as partners in providing a service that has become more and more important as healthcare costs are more and more expensive. Last week, a study suggested that, because many Americans were just working so they could have access to healthcare through their jobs, as many as two million may soon exit the workforce to retire and take advantage of Obamacare to help them do so. That is 2 million people who are now looking for work that may now be able to find a job. Of course, that was spun as a negative by the GOP. I'm not an ACA fan or even an apologist (I don't think it goes far enough), but I'm willing to give it some time to see how it works before passing judgment before the enrollment period is even over. How much is enough? Lets wait and see what the value comes out to be -- not skewed estimates but the actual value -- before we decide on that. If it fails, I will say it failed and will push for a single payer option. Until then, I reserve judgment.

Spending on "stimulus". I think one thing is clear -- we didn't spend enough to really kickstart the economy like it needed to be kickstarted. It did save the auto industry and stabalize the banking system, however. Who knows what kind of insanity we'd be dealing with today if those two major contributions hadn't taken hold? How much is enough? We'll know it when we see it I suppose ... that is if we ever get our heads out of our asses in time to do what we KNOW works.

No matter the fiscal conservative blather about less spending, they spend money as least as much as their democrat peers -- they just don't spend it as much on anything that is in the true interest of the country over the long hall. I will use the starting of the Iraq war on a dishonest premise as an example. How much did that cost the country? How about tax cuts for the rich? If that money will naturally trickle down, why are we in such an unemployment hole right now? Fact of the matter, if the republican establishment (whom I agree with very infrequently) was not in place, leaving the new order in that party to their own devices, the GOP would absolutley destroy itself. The old guard is the only think keeping any coherence in their rhetoric, to the extent that they are not afraid of being primaries by tea party candidates with more extreme ideas.

It's OK if you want to come out of the closet. Same with Chicago. Bring on the United Socialist States of America: "Social Justice" for the Masses Determined By an Elite Few

 

[Ndaccountant]

And therein lies the rub. If they were to split the Republican party, they'd lose every election 40-30-30. My guess is that the best hope would be a viable Libertarian party.

It be interesting to see what sways people to be a R or D, because I believe most people are tuned into one or two issues and the rest is secondary.

 

[ACamp1900]

It be interesting to see what sways people to be a R or D, because I believe most people are tuned into one or two issues and the rest is secondary.

This would be me... I am against the current Welfare state, big gov./big spending... while both parties suck, when that's what drives you there is only really one choice (while a bad one), so I basically vote against the D's more than anything.

 

[wizards8507]

It be interesting to see what sways people to be a R or D, because I believe most people are tuned into one or two issues and the rest is secondary.

That's definitely true, and the polling data proves it. Young voters, for example, overwhelmingly vote the issue of gay marriage.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

This would be me... I am against the current Welfare state, big gov./big spending... while both parties suck, when that's what drives you there is only really one choice (while a bad one), so I basically vote against the D's more than anything.

So you support the corporate welfare state.

 

[wizards8507]

So you support the corporate welfare state.

Yeah, because those are the only two options.

You lose credibility when you say shit like that. You might make a valid point three pages from now but I'll remember you as the guy who thinks a person must either be for individual welfare or corporate welfare because therein lies the comprehensive spectrum of all political ideologies that an American can hold.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Yeah, because those are the only two options.

You lose credibility when you say shit like that. You might make a valid point three pages from now but I'll remember you as the guy who thinks a person must either be for individual welfare or corporate welfare because therein lies the comprehensive spectrum of all political ideologies that an American can hold.

I think this is called projection.

 

[connor_in]

Hey guys...can I just say something here?

I think we have had a pretty interesting conversation today and unlike a chunk of the outside world (and some other days even on here) ideas and views without attacks, ie actual discussion, not arguing has ruled...HOORAY for IE!!!!

 

[chicago51]

It's OK if you want to come out of the closet. Same with Chicago. Bring on the United Socialist States of America: "Social Justice" for the Masses Determined By an Elite Few

So you are not a socialist?

Do you (or anyone else on IE for that matter that thinks they are not a socialist) get health insurance from your job?

Because your employer contributions to health care are fully tax except so the government has subsidizing employees health care by helping your employer pay for their contributions thus making premiums cheaper just like socialist Obamacare is now subsidizing those on the individual market. Obamacare isn't how I would have solved the problem but subsidizing individuals isn't much different than subsidizing employers and employees.

Also did your Republican congressman assuming you are in a GOP district vote for the original House Farm Bill (they all pretty much voted for it as it passed on all Republican votes) that increased spending on socialist agriculture subsidies?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Yeah, because those are the only two options.

You lose credibility when you say shit like that. You might make a valid point three pages from now but I'll remember you as the guy who thinks a person must either be for individual welfare or corporate welfare because therein lies the comprehensive spectrum of all political ideologies that an American can hold.

I probably should've put it in italics. Thought it was funny.

 

[chicago51]

Yeah, because those are the only two options.

You lose credibility when you say shit like that. You might make a valid point three pages from now but I'll remember you as the guy who thinks a person must either be for individual welfare or corporate welfare because therein lies the comprehensive spectrum of all political ideologies that an American can hold.

Actually corporate welfare isn't BS it is real.

This is online right now you also check your own return to see how it breaks down. It is hard to post using my phone some copying the figures.

$50k worker income tax breakdown:
$3.98 FEMA
$6.96 Welfare programs
$22.88 long term unemployment
$36.82 food stamps from SNAP program
$43.78 retirement for government workers including the military
$235.81 Medicare in addition to payroll tax
$247.45 Military
$4000.00 corporate subsidies

Are sure you guys are getting mad at the right people?

Medicare payroll taxes for a $50k worker is $1450 and SS is $3250 which is a lot but still less than corporate subsidies.

Why someone would kick and scream over food stamps instead of farm, oil, or some other corporate subsidy is beyond me.

BTW food stamps is partially an indirect corporate subsidy because we subsidized Walmart and McDonalds for having business models that are detrimental to America because we have to pick up the tab because their employees can't afford to feed their kids. I actually think libertarians that don't believe in a social safety should be for a minimum wage increase because less people would be on government assistance.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hey guys...can I just say something here?

I think we have had a pretty interesting conversation today and unlike a chunk of the outside world (and some other days even on here) ideas and views without attacks, ie actual discussion, not arguing has ruled...HOORAY for IE!!!!

Someone rep this man. I can't because its too soon since last time. Thanks.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually corporate welfare isn't BS it is real.

This is online right now you also check your own return to see how it breaks down. It is hard to post using my phone some copying the figures.

$50k worker income tax breakdown:
$3.98 FEMA
$6.96 Welfare programs
$22.88 long term unemployment
$36.82 food stamps from SNAP program
$43.78 retirement for government workers including the military
$235.81 Medicare in addition to payroll tax
$247.45 Military
$4000.00 corporate subsidies

Are sure you guys are getting mad at the right people?

Medicare payroll taxes for a $50k worker is $1450 and SS is $3250 which is a lot but still less than corporate subsidies.

Why someone would kick and scream over food stamps instead of farm, oil, or some other corporate subsidy is beyond me.

BTW food stamps is partially an indirect corporate subsidy because we subsidized Walmart and McDonalds for having business models that are detrimental to America because we have to pick up the tab because their employees can't afford to feed their kids. I actually think libertarians that don't believe in a social safety should be for a minimum wage increase because less people would be on government assistance.

Good post. Completely agree.

 

[ACamp1900]

Someone rep this man. I can't because its too soon since last time. Thanks.

I neg rep'd him for you.

 

[chicago51]

Here is some corporate subsidies people pay:

This for $72k family: Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business | Common Dreams

$870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies
$696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels
$722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks
$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees
$1,268 for Overpriced Medications
$870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies
$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So you are not a socialist?

Do you (or anyone else on IE for that matter that thinks they are not a socialist) get health insurance from your job?

Because your employer contributions to health care are fully tax except so the government has subsidizing employees health care by helping your employer pay for their contributions thus making premiums cheaper just like socialist Obamacare is now subsidizing those on the individual market. Obamacare isn't how I would have solved the problem but subsidizing individuals isn't much different than subsidizing employers and employees.

Also did your Republican congressman assuming you are in a GOP district vote for the original House Farm Bill (they all pretty much voted for it as it passed on all Republican votes) that increased spending on socialist agriculture subsidies?

So this is the prism in which you see the world? I have health insurance through my employer because that's part of the package I receive for my labor. Has nothing to do with the government or subsidies.

Not sure about the Farm Bill, what was attached, or who voted how but I would be opposed.

 

[phgreek]

Lets compare shall we.

1) Taxes (Inflation adjusted will top, middle, and floor rates for space purposes)

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

Obama:
Top Rate: Married 441k, Single 392k: 39.6% (Those over 250k pay extra 0.9% Medicare tax)
High Income Capital Gains Married 250k, Single 200k - 20% (plus new Obamacare 3.8% Medicare tax which is the same as the income Medicare tax)
Middle Rates: Married 143k Single 86k - 28% Married 71k, Single 35.5k - 25%
Floor Rate: 10% up to 17k for married, 8.5k for Single

Reagan (We'll go to 1988 the year Reagan's final tax bracket was passed into law, also increased SS that year to today's rates):
Top Rate:Married over 57k, Single over 34k - 28%
Bottom Rate: 15%
Capital Gains rates were the same

Kennedy/LBJ (We'll use 1965 the year after it was passed into law in 1964, also same year Medicare was passed. SS was half of what it was today):
Top Rate: Married 1.4 million, Single 729k: 70%
High Capital Gains Rate: Don't have the data I believe it was 52% not sure of the cutoff point. I believe LBJ/Kennedy bill raised the capital gains rates along while cutting the income rates.
Middle Rates:
22.0% Married: $58,310-$87,464 Single: $29,155-$43,732
25.0% Married: $87,464-$116,619 Single: $43,732-$58,310
28.0% Married: $116,619-$145,774 Single: $58,310-$72,887
Bottom Rates:
14.0% Married: $0 - $7,289 14.0% Single: $0 - $3,644
15.0% Married: $7,289 - $14,577 Single: $3,644 - $7,289

So if my math serves me correct Obama is much closer to Reagan's tax numbers than Kennedy/LBJ's.

So Obama is closer to Reaganomics than pre Reaganomics.

Issue # 2: Free Trade

Obama: Yes
Reagan: Yes (free trade basically started under Nixon but exploded under Reagan)
LBJ/Kennedy: Used Tarriffs

Again still in Reaganomics

Issue # 3: Social Safety Net

Reagan did believe in Medicaid, but want to cut other Social Safety Net spending. In this area Obama is more simular to LBJ.

What has actually happened though under the Obama adminstration has been a fixed bag while Obamacare dramatically expanded the safety net. The lack of Medicaid expansion in states hurt it. Also we've seen cuts to Medicare (although it was more effeciency related) and food stamps under the Obama administration.

I wouldn't say we our out of Reaganomics although we've pushed away from it.

Issue #4:

Education:
Obama policy wise much more simular to Kennedy/LBJ (the former who campaigned on building new schools from the revenue generate from closing tax loopholes). College assistant has increased under Obama mostly through tax credits.

Although it is a far cry from the pre Reagan days were the cost of sending a student to a state college was subsidized by the government (on all levels) 80% as opposed to 20% in today. Which started under Reagan when he cut the education budget from 12% to 6%. University of California was a free college until Reagan became governor and cut the funding because he didn't like the hippi attitude that developed on college campus. Lots of governors followed his example.

As a nation we have not reached pre Reagan status in terms of the cost of higher education.

Issue # 5: Regulation of Trust

Before Reagan we had no Wal Marts and other giant companies because we enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act. Since Reagan no President including Clinton, and Obama have enforced it.

Issue #6: Banking

Because of the issue # 5 prior to Reagan we didn't have any "too big to fail" banks. Obama did nothing to these the institutions that helped cause the financial crisis.

Also we deregulated all the banking rules under Reagan as well as Clinton. Glass Steagall used to seperate heavy gambling investment banking from personal banking (mortage, checking, savings, etc) but that was ended by Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

So when you through this issues and compare Presidents but more importantly compare the actual policy that is enacted right now and we are clearly still in a Reagan economy not a pre Reagan economy. The 2013 for better or worse is still a product of Reaganomics and Obama/Bill Clinton/ Bush Sr/Bush Jr are not all that much different economically from one another. To be honest the Clinton economy was largely based on luck of the .com bubble and Bush Jr economy was based largely on being President when the some the bubbles like .com bubble and housing bubble burst. Yes Bill Clinton raised taxes a little but most of the President's since Reagan have all been simular.

There are other issues but I think these are the main economic issues. It is probably social issues and foreign policy where you would see more differences. Economically regardless of what an indvidual President may have wanted we have been enacting Reagan policies for 33 years.

not a lot of time to digest this...but I'm guessing herein we overlook the difference between moderate in view and goal, and being moderated by the system...will be back in the wee hours to give this the read it deserves...

 

[chicago51]

So this is the prism in which you see the world? I have health insurance through my employer because that's part of the package I receive for my labor. Has nothing to do with the government or subsidies.

Not sure about the Farm Bill, what was attached, or who voted how but I would be opposed.

Yes the insurance is part of the package you receive for your labor you are 100% correct. That cost cheaper and in some cases even available to employees in the first place because of the government gives your employers contributions special tax privileges. If that big bad government benefit was not available to your employer your employer would either have you paying a greater portion of the cost or not offer insurance at all.

The exclusion for employer-provided health care is the single largest tax expenditure under the current tax system, amounting to an estimated $260 billion in reduced income and payroll tax revenues in 2013. I am not against this by any means at least not with this current health care system as eliminating this benefit would be a disaster. My point though is that Americans like yourself are getting helped by the government and don't even know it. Tax expenditures like this are just government spending is in disguise.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes the insurance is part of the package you receive for your labor you are 100% correct. That cost cheaper and in some cases even available to employees in the first place because of the government gives your employers contributions special tax privileges. If that big bad government benefit was not available to your employer your employer would either have you paying a greater portion of the cost or not offer insurance at all.

The exclusion for employer-provided health care is the single largest tax expenditure under the current tax system, amounting to an estimated $260 billion in reduced income and payroll tax revenues in 2013. I am not against this by any means at least not with this current health care system as eliminating this benefit would be a disaster. My point though is that Americans like yourself are getting helped by the government and don't even know it. Tax expenditures like this are just government spending is in disguise.

I can't find this anywhere. Can you provide links or info leading us to this? Still not convinced that the feds have anything to do with my employer covering me with health insurance. I DO know that they take about 30% of my paycheck every two weeks and about 40% on commission paychecks.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I can't find this anywhere. Can you provide links or info leading us to this? Still not convinced that the feds have anything to do with my employer covering me with health insurance. I DO know that they take about 30% of my paycheck every two weeks and about 40% on commission paychecks.

You won't find it, at least in the way that it is presented.

The reason why employers offer insurance dates back to the Stabilization Act of 1942, which was basically a price control act where salaries and wages were more or less frozen. Pensions and insurance were exempted, though increases were still limited and had to be approved by the government.

At this point in time, a very small percentage of the population was covered by insurance. Right around the start of 1930, there was a national problem where people where being admitted to hospitals for major issues and could not afford to pay the bills (sound familiar?). This issue was pronounced since most people did not view "check ups" as necessary. So, hospitals were largely vacant and hospitals nationwide struggled to keep open. To fight this, a group of teachers in Dallas came up with the idea that if they all contributed $6 annually, they would be guaranteed 21 days of hospital stay (thus using the service more frequently). This organization is considered the origin of Blue Cross. The idea of employees pooling money to protect each other spread. Blue Shield was created at approximately the same time to cover physician expenses rather hospital fees. Also during the 1930's, some group called Kaiser Permanente was formed. This is really the start of the employee system as we know it today. Kaiser Co was building a dam in remote California. At the time, this group had arrangements with a company saying anyone injured would be sent to a specific hospital 200 miles away. A physician on site convinced the insurance companies that he would provide all on-site care to employees for a nominal monthly fee, which could be deducted from employee paychecks. This started the Kaiser Foundation Heath Plan. By the time the 1940's started, roughly 10% of Americans had coverage. With the efforts of WWII, the Stabilization Act was passed and health insurance became the way for employers to attract employees.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You won't find it, at least in the way that it is presented.

The reason why employers offer insurance dates back to the Stabilization Act of 1942, which was basically a price control act where salaries and wages were more or less frozen. Pensions and insurance were exempted, though increases were still limited and had to be approved by the government.

At this point in time, a very small percentage of the population was covered by insurance. Right around the start of 1930, there was a national problem where people where being admitted to hospitals for major issues and could not afford to pay the bills (sound familiar?). This issue was pronounced since most people did not view "check ups" as necessary. So, hospitals were largely vacant and hospitals nationwide struggled to keep open. To fight this, a group of teachers in Dallas came up with the idea that if they all contributed $6 annually, they would be guaranteed 21 days of hospital stay (thus using the service more frequently). This organization is considered the origin of Blue Cross. The idea of employees pooling money to protect each other spread. Blue Shield was created at approximately the same time to cover physician expenses rather hospital fees. Also during the 1930's, some group called Kaiser Permanente was formed. This is really the start of the employee system as we know it today. Kaiser Co was building a dam in remote California. At the time, this group had arrangements with a company saying anyone injured would be sent to a specific hospital 200 miles away. A physician on site convinced the insurance companies that he would provide all on-site care to employees for a nominal monthly fee, which could be deducted from employee paychecks. This started the Kaiser Foundation Heath Plan. By the time the 1940's started, roughly 10% of Americans had coverage. With the efforts of WWII, the Stabilization Act was passed and health insurance became the way for employers to attract employees.

Thank you. I guess this was another example of Chicago reading a socialist blog and accepting it as valid.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obama has moved to the middle -- too much for my taste, quite frankly. But when the GOP moves further right, they think that the center moves with them to compensate. As a Democrat, I reject that notion. Obama has had to deal with more obstruction than Clinton ever did when he was president. He has given in to the GOP far too much. Ask Boener what he meant during budget negotiations when he boasted, that he got "98% of what he wanted." Is this 2% of what he didn't get the basis for your contention that Obama is an elitist dictator? It is almost comical to discover the rationale behind the GOP rhetoric. It would be actually comical if it didn't have real consequences for real people.

Clinton's stated goal wasn't fundamental transformation. Since that is Obama's mission, yes it calls for obstruction every step of the way.

 

[connor_in]

What is everyone's take on the newest change to Obamacare/ACAPPCA?

 

[T Town Tommy]

What is everyone's take on the newest change to Obamacare/ACAPPCA?

In relation to delaying the employer mandate another year?

 

[GoIrish41]

Clinton's stated goal wasn't fundamental transformation. Since that is Obama's mission, yes it calls for obstruction every step of the way.

I'm proud of you Leppy. You have finally admitted the obvious obstructionism that is taking place. Now we can work on getting you to understand that that is hurting the country and that legislating by tantrum is no way to move the country forward. Obama was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Thank you. I guess this was another example of Chicago reading a socialist blog and accepting it as valid.

Well, he is correct in saying that it is a huge tax subsidy. However, context is very important here.

First, who knows what would have happened if there wasn't a government mandated wage freeze. Moving past that point, the intent of the tax treatment was to expand coverage and it was deemed more cost effective to allow employers to provide it. But with most government programs, the laws and tax treatment failed to be updated over time as the marketplace changed. Thus, unintended consequences begin to happen and it is nearly impossible to change from a political standpoint.